[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: size of emacs executable after unicode merge
From: |
Dan Nicolaescu |
Subject: |
Re: size of emacs executable after unicode merge |
Date: |
Thu, 27 Nov 2008 08:12:29 -0800 (PST) |
Kenichi Handa <address@hidden> writes:
> In article <address@hidden>, Chong Yidong <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > Kenichi Handa <address@hidden> writes:
> >>> > One idea is to have a single boolean vector of size #x110000
> >>> > (139264 bytes), setup it for CHARSET everytime when we call
> >>> > map-charset-chars for the different charset. In that
> >>> > vector, only the bit for #x3000, #x3001, #x3002, etc are 1
> >>> > for chinese-gb2312. Then map-charset-chars can know for
> >>> > which characters FUNCTION must be called.
> > >
> >>> but it appears to free a negligible about of memory.
> > >
> > > Did you comment out the calls of unify-charset in
> > > mule-conf.el and change the encoding of all preloaded *.el
> > > files to utf-8?
>
> > Commenting out the calls to unify-charset does reduce the memory by
> > several megabytes.
>
> After taking over Chong's experiment, I could reduce the
> size of Emacs executables about 7M bytes. About 4M bytes
> were actually because of charset mapping tables, and it
> could be reduced by setting up C structure temp_charset_work
> (see charset.c for the detail) instead of making many Lisp
> objects (char-table and vector). Another 3M bytes were
> because of big standard category table. It could be reduced
> by hashing the table entries (see hash_get_category_set in
> category.c for the detail).
>
> As a result, now the executable is 10,671,313 bytes on
> GNU/Linux.
Thanks for doing this!
> It's still 1.6M bytes larger than Emacs 22, but I'm not sure it's
> worth making more effort to reduce it.
In that case that size increase might be with us for ever and ever,
which is not ideal.
Also a related question: the data in the .map files in
emacs/etc/charsets be transformed into elisp? That way the normal
loading mechanism could be used for them, and no parser + other code
would be needed...
- Re: size of emacs executable after unicode merge, (continued)
- Re: size of emacs executable after unicode merge, Chong Yidong, 2008/11/09
- Re: size of emacs executable after unicode merge, Kenichi Handa, 2008/11/09
- Re: size of emacs executable after unicode merge, Chong Yidong, 2008/11/10
- Re: size of emacs executable after unicode merge, Chong Yidong, 2008/11/10
- Re: size of emacs executable after unicode merge, Chong Yidong, 2008/11/11
- Re: size of emacs executable after unicode merge, Kenichi Handa, 2008/11/12
- Re: size of emacs executable after unicode merge, Chong Yidong, 2008/11/13
- Re: size of emacs executable after unicode merge, Kenichi Handa, 2008/11/13
- Re: size of emacs executable after unicode merge, Kenichi Handa, 2008/11/27
- Re: size of emacs executable after unicode merge, Chong Yidong, 2008/11/27
- Re: size of emacs executable after unicode merge,
Dan Nicolaescu <=
- Re: size of emacs executable after unicode merge, Kenichi Handa, 2008/11/27
- Re: size of emacs executable after unicode merge, Stefan Monnier, 2008/11/27
- Re: size of emacs executable after unicode merge, Richard M Stallman, 2008/11/27
- Re: size of emacs executable after unicode merge, Eli Zaretskii, 2008/11/27
- Re: size of emacs executable after unicode merge, Kenichi Handa, 2008/11/27
- Re: size of emacs executable after unicode merge, Richard M Stallman, 2008/11/28
- Re: size of emacs executable after unicode merge, Kenichi Handa, 2008/11/28
- Re: size of emacs executable after unicode merge, Eli Zaretskii, 2008/11/29
- Re: size of emacs executable after unicode merge, Richard M Stallman, 2008/11/29
- Re: size of emacs executable after unicode merge, Chetan Pandya, 2008/11/29