[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, 23 Apr 2006 06:32:58 +0300 |
> Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 20:05:17 -0500 (CDT)
> From: Luc Teirlinck <address@hidden>
> CC: address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden,
> address@hidden
>
> After that `c' in GDB just continues, apparently completely ignoring
> the breakpoint on Fload.
That is very strange indeed.
> After bootstrapping, my pure-bytes-used is 1200904, which is
> apparently less than the 1216528 reported by Eli.
This part I understand: I measured the values on MS-Windows, which
loads a bunch of files other systems don't (that's why it defines a
25KB extra for PURESIZE).
> Both numbers are larger than BASE_PURESIZE used to be before it got
> increased from 1200000 to 1205000. After that increase I no longer
> get the overflow warning.
Fine, then I think we can close the issue. Thanks.
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), (continued)
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Eli Zaretskii, 2006/04/23
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Eli Zaretskii, 2006/04/23
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Dan Nicolaescu, 2006/04/23
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Eli Zaretskii, 2006/04/23
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Dan Nicolaescu, 2006/04/23
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Eli Zaretskii, 2006/04/23
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Richard Stallman, 2006/04/24
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Luc Teirlinck, 2006/04/22
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Richard Stallman, 2006/04/22
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Luc Teirlinck, 2006/04/22
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again),
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Richard Stallman, 2006/04/23
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Romain Francoise, 2006/04/16
Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Eli Zaretskii, 2006/04/16
Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Bill Wohler, 2006/04/18