Here's a message I received from emacs-devel that evidently sat in some queue in lists,gnu.org for 20 minutes:
From [email protected] Wed Oct 05 14:18:36 2022 Return-path: <[email protected]> Envelope-to: [email protected] Delivery-date: Wed, 05 Oct 2022 14:18:36 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:60152) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <[email protected]>) id 1og8yF-0008Ew-Ca for [email protected]; Wed, 05 Oct 2022 14:18:32 -0400 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]:36440) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <[email protected]>) id 1og8yE-0006Qk-W5 for [email protected]; Wed, 05 Oct 2022 14:18:15 -0400 Received: from localhost ([::1]:54628 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <[email protected]>) id 1og8yE-0007aE-Gs for [email protected]; Wed, 05 Oct 2022 14:18:14 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:39968) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <[email protected]>) id 1og8fN-0002GH-34 for [email protected]; Wed, 05 Oct 2022 13:58:45 -0400 Received: from mx.sdf.org ([205.166.94.24]:49292) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <[email protected]>) id 1og8fK-0002Kw-Pk; Wed, 05 Oct 2022 13:58:44 -0400 Received: from ma.sdf.org (ma.sdf.org [205.166.94.33]) by mx.sdf.org (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPS id 295Hwb5K012494 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256 bits) verified NO); Wed, 5 Oct 2022 17:58:37 GMT From: Andrea Corallo <[email protected]> To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <[email protected]> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Subject: Re: Suppressing native compilation (short and long term) In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> (Lars Ingebrigtsen's message of "Wed, 05 Oct 2022 18:13:58 +0200") References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2022 17:58:37 +0000 Message-ID: <[email protected]> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Received-SPF: pass client-ip=205.166.94.24; [email protected]; helo=mx.sdf.org X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: [email protected] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." <emacs-devel.gnu.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/emacs-devel>, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel> List-Post: <mailto:[email protected]> List-Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=subscribe> X-Mailman-Copy: yes Errors-To: [email protected] Sender: "Emacs-devel" <[email protected]> X-RMAIL-ATTRIBUTES: -D------ Lars Ingebrigtsen <[email protected]> writes: > Andrea Corallo <[email protected]> writes: > >>> (Which reminds me -- one thing I've been pondering for a while is >>> whether "emacs -Q" should imply having the JIT off or not. We use "-Q" >>> to get a repeatable Emacs for users, so it would make some sense to have >>> -Q now imply `inhibit-automatic-native-compilation'. >> >> Noooo please!! -Q has just one single clear meaning, let please not add >> other implications to it!! The situation would become very quickly >> unmanageable. > > Yes, that one clear meaning is: > > -Q, --quick > Similar to "-q --no-site-file --no-splash". Also, avoid > processing X resources. Exactly, adding complexity involving the execution engine here is IMO just searching for troubles (and having -Q not usable for debugging the execution engine itself). Let's please do not write patches solving issues we never encountered or implementing unrequested features. Andrea
