Re: [feature/dll-only-windows] A new windows build, comments wanted

[Andrea Corallo]

Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@russet.org.uk> writes:

> Andrea Corallo <akrl@sdf.org> writes:
>
>>> The first is because it's broken or providing buggy behaviour. In the
>>> extreme, and if I understand the build process fully, I guess this is
>>> impossible to switch of in a binary distribution, because some
>>> native-comp happens before dumping. Other than that, we can "switch off"
>>> native-comp by just deleting the *eln files, right, or otherwise
>>> preventing their loading. In practice, I think this is a minor
>>> motivation; if we discover bugs in the native-comp, they would be fixed
>>> by making another release.
>>
>> Hi Phillip,
>>
>> ATM we can prevent Emacs loading .eln file in place of .elc
>> automatically setting `load-no-native' to t.
>>
>>> The second reason is that the initial compilation takes quite a lot of
>>> CPU. I wouldn't like that to happen while my laptop where in battery
>>> power, for instance. At the moment, it's possible to drop the number of
>>> jobs that native-comp uses. I don't think that there is a way to drop
>>> this to zero at the moment. Probably, we need that.
>>
>> Setting `comp-deferred-compilation' to nil should stop any automatic
>> attempt of compiling asycronousy.
>>
>> Maybe these two settings are already covering most of these needs?
>
>
> Yes, I think so, but it's probably an issue of thinking about the user
> interface. Having this a bit more consistent (i.e. a single name space,
> rather than two (native-comp and comp) and none (i.e. load-no-native))
> and perhaps a single option that does both ("comp-disable").
>
> Just thoughts.

Welcome thoughts from my side.

I did my best to fit current name conventions but indeed this might be
not the best arrangement, especially looking at it as single UI
interface towards the "native compiler" seen as single entity.

Looking forward to discuss and tackle this in the code review.

  Andrea