[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: PURESIZE increased (again)
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: PURESIZE increased (again) |
Date: |
Sun, 16 Apr 2006 10:18:38 +0300 |
> Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 10:07:59 +0300
> From: Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden
>
> Judging by "cvs log", BASE_PURESIZE went up by 100,000 since last
> October, whereas before that it kept its value for 2 years without any
> changes. Perhaps we should consider each such change more carefully.
For that matter, could someone (Richard?) tell what are the thumb
rules for estimating the required value of SYSTEM_PURESIZE_EXTRA
(other than by trial and error)? Will the combined size of
system-specific *.el/*.elc files loaded by loadup.el be a good start,
or are there any additional bits to take into consideration?
(I'm asking because I suspect that the value of SYSTEM_PURESIZE_EXTRA
could be exaggerated as well, at least on Windows.)
- PURESIZE increased (again), Eli Zaretskii, 2006/04/16
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again),
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Romain Francoise, 2006/04/16
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Andreas Schwab, 2006/04/16
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Eli Zaretskii, 2006/04/16
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Reiner Steib, 2006/04/20
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Eli Zaretskii, 2006/04/20
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Reiner Steib, 2006/04/20
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Stefan Monnier, 2006/04/20
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Eli Zaretskii, 2006/04/21
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Eli Zaretskii, 2006/04/21
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Eli Zaretskii, 2006/04/21