From xemacs-m  Fri Aug  8 01:12:40 1997
Received: from altair.xemacs.org (steve@xemacs.miranova.com [206.190.83.19])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id BAA03242
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 01:12:38 -0500 (CDT)
Received: (from steve@localhost)
	by altair.xemacs.org (8.8.6/8.8.6) id XAA11975;
	Thu, 7 Aug 1997 23:16:44 -0700
Mail-Copies-To: never
To: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: Re: pkgdir ignored?
References: <E0wso94-00019Q-00@neptune.corp.comsat.com> <199707281210.IAA27980@news.smart.net> <m2pvs3cidb.fsf@altair.xemacs.org> <bywwmayyaa.fsf@midget.math.ethz.ch> <byvi1uyun9.fsf@midget.math.ethz.ch> <m2racf1zl7.fsf@altair.xemacs.org> <bylo2nh7o4.fsf@midget.math.ethz.ch>
X-Face: `'%\i;ySOu]g?NlziJSk_$&@]KP`}~PEQPjZ5;nxSaDW_o$4+4%Ab]%Ifw3ZR;7TIT3,O,'
 @2{L;]ox6kc;$_5kU'n**9vFg-]eV~GbxSVCx|(s%uR[],*:^WKmC`B}(;|k9/m]gwt?&`t;^rfCJg
 khHH>pP1W\)xM0U@!FNDD72{3fDP$PkBhx^7Z?-WxH6DbFN:QOnT`llzW}VGdYv;n9lzljQvKTIBhQ
 YuV
X-Attribution: sb
From: SL Baur <steve@xemacs.org>
In-Reply-To: Jan Vroonhof's message of "31 Jul 1997 11:50:35 +0200"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.108)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Date: 07 Aug 1997 23:16:44 -0700
Message-ID: <m2yb6dgpwz.fsf@altair.xemacs.org>
Lines: 24
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.64/XEmacs 20.3(beta17) - "Bucharest"

Jan Vroonhof <vroonhof@math.ethz.ch> wrote on my birthday:

>> > Secondly it might gives you problems with PURESIZE (does this NEED to
>> > be a compiletime constant?.
>> 
>> Yes.  It delimits a static C array.

> May be it is time to rethink this whole stuff anyway. My next
> killer-feature (after threading but before lexical scoping) would .elc
> file that can mmapped.

> For the mean time (on mmap capable systems): How about
>  pure-size becomes a run time parameter to temacs.
>  temacs starts by mmapping a pure-size size file and uses that as pure
>  space
>  on dump time it unmaps the file and dumps.
>  xemacs on startup mmaps the file read-only (the file could be a
>  special section in the binary?) at exactly the same location it was
>  before.

> Would this work?

It sounds interesting.  I am not qualified to answer that question
myself, but I would be interested in testing a prototype.

