Removing support for Emacs unexec from Glibc
Removing support for Emacs unexec from Glibc
Posted Jan 29, 2016 2:53 UTC (Fri) by NightMonkey (subscriber, #23051)Parent article: Removing support for Emacs unexec from Glibc
Don't get me wrong - I know all significant software likely has a sordid story in its history. :)
Posted Jan 29, 2016 3:38 UTC (Fri)
by pr1268 (guest, #24648)
[Link]
And ever since the vi devs got the kernel folks to accommodate their special request, the emacs team has been jealously crying foul. How unfair that vi gets special support from the kernel and emacs has to settle for just glibc! Just kidding. And being facetious. ;-) Seriously, though, while I know glibc has its origins in the work of Roland McGrath and Ulrich Drepper, I'm convinced that RMS made lots of demands/requests etc. with regards to its development, seeing how emacs was/is his longtime pet project.
Posted Jan 31, 2016 4:43 UTC (Sun)
by giraffedata (guest, #1954)
[Link]
Running Emacs, not building it. Every time someone invokes Emacs, it is fast because of its call to glibc's malloc_set_state().
And I'm sure it wasn't put there just for Emacs; the expectation was that other programs could exploit it the same way. It's generic enough, and the problem (programs taking a long time to start up because they have to load a bunch of stuff) common enough, that that would have been reasonable.
So I think the dog wagged the tail.
Posted Feb 1, 2016 23:17 UTC (Mon)
by flussence (guest, #85566)
[Link]
Wouldn't that be the fabled “TTY layer” I've heard horror stories about? I've heard it eats developers...
It's been sour grapes ever since...
"The kernel has special code to allow vi to clear the screen without leaving framebuffer glyph artifacts."
Removing support for Emacs unexec from Glibc
it seems shocking that Glibc has code that exists primarily to support building Emacs.
Removing support for Emacs unexec from Glibc