[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: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 08:22:23 +0300

> Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 16:19:01 -0500 (CDT)
> From: Luc Teirlinck <address@hidden>
> CC: address@hidden
> Of course, using different compilers or different C Libraries,
> _including_ different version numbers for the same compiler or library
> will not have any effect on the .el file, but it can definitely have
> an effect on the .elc files.  Different OS or different versions of
> the same OS of course also can make a difference.

As you wrote later, since pure storage comes out of a static array, it
is hard to believe the OS or the compiler can make the difference.
But for the record, the compiler I used was gcc 3.4.5.

> As I already mentioned, talking about KB is meaningless in this
> context, this is about average percentages.

I don't know whether average is the right measure here (we won't know
for sure until we discover the reason(s) for the discrepancy), but
how's this: loading subr.elc took 14KB more in Rainer's build than in
mine, bindings.elc took 23KB more, utf-16.elc took 15KB more, etc.  I
think these are very large differences.

> But maybe variations tend to be larger for 64 bit than for 32?

AFAIU the byte compiling, there should be no variation at all on the
same architecture and OS, as long as the same files are loaded.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]