Re: sig segv cut-n-paste issue with 10^6 lines

Vladimir G. Ivanovic writes: Yes. In the source code. The reason for the difference is historical and legal. In 1997-1998 XEmacs added Mule which required some changes, and also did a lot of work on optimizing the byte compiler. Martin Buchholz offered to port the XEmacs improvements to GNU Emacs (AFAIK copyright is assigned to the FSF) around 1999 when he was at ETL, but was turned down because of the Great Redisplay Rewrite; Gerd didn't have time. Since then GNU has added a very divergent version of Mule and done its own optimizing. AFAIK they never contacted Martin, and of course it's very possible that the offer to do the work was no longer open. Without Martin's personal involvement to testify that the code was not polluted with unassigned code, it's unlikely that the FSF lawyers would permit the XEmacs code into GNU Emacs. Of course we could port GNU improvements in the other direction, but we have a working, reasonably well-optimized byte compiler and interpreter. In fact, as of Python 2.0 I think it was, the XEmacs byte code was about 10% faster on a meaningless benchmark than Python's VM. But actually there is meaning there: there probably is very little efficiency improvement that can be squeezed out of the XEmacs virtual machine without changing Emacs Lisp. There are also a fair number of minor differences in philosophy, which you will find oblique references to in comments in the bytecode system implementation. All this could be worked out, I suppose, but what is the gain to be expected from that? _______________________________________________ XEmacs-Beta mailing list XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta