[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: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 18:13:18 +0300

> From: Reiner Steib <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden
> Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 19:15:53 +0200
> On Fri, Apr 28 2006, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > I think it's time to see whether the *.elc files we use are identical.
> > Can you upload a couple of worst offenders, say, files.elc and
> > simple.elc?  I'd like to compare them to mine.
> http://theotp1.physik.uni-ulm.de/~ste/tmp/emacs/lisp/
> (The *.elc files were compile on i686.)


I compared these with the versions compiled on a 32-bit Windows host,
and they seem to be identical, except for 2 aspects:

  . Source files, whose absolute file names appear in a comment at the
    beginning of the .elc files.  These are in comments, so they are
    obviously not the reason for the differences in pure space usage.

  . Minor differences in the defvar's and custom forms, like these:

    -(defvar backup-inhibited nil (#$ . 2763))
    +(defvar backup-inhibited nil (#$ . 2801))

    -(custom-declare-variable 'backup-by-copying 'nil '(#$ . -3035) :type 
'boolean :group 'backup)
    +(custom-declare-variable 'backup-by-copying 'nil '(#$ . -3073) :type 
'boolean :group 'backup)

I think these differences are immaterial, but just so we don't miss
something of importance: could someone who knows more than myself
about the byte-compiled code please tell what are those numbers that
differ between the two systems?

Meanwhile, I will try to prepare a GDB session that we could use to
compare the pure space allocation during loadup.

Thanks again for working on this.

reply via email to

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