[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: BASE_PURESIZE
From: |
Dan Nicolaescu |
Subject: |
Re: BASE_PURESIZE |
Date: |
Fri, 23 Oct 2009 23:47:25 -0700 (PDT) |
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <address@hidden> writes:
> Juanma Barranquero writes:
> > On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 13:00, Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> wrote:
> >
> > > I looked at the values of pure_size vs pure_bytes_used in several
> > > builds on several platforms, and I see that we are wasting at least
> > > 130KB:
> [...]
> > on Windows I get
> [...]
> > or about 252 KiB wasted.
>
> Three comments:
>
> 1. XEmacs abandoned pure space years ago on the assumption that (bugs
> aside) copy-on-write means that dumped text will be shared anyway.
> Is that incorrect?
Do you have generational GC? If not, all the data in the dumped image
dumped image will be GCed every time, and that means lots of pages will
get written to, so won't be shareable.
- Re: BASE_PURESIZE, (continued)
- Re: BASE_PURESIZE, Eli Zaretskii, 2009/10/24
- Re: BASE_PURESIZE, Dan Nicolaescu, 2009/10/24
- Re: BASE_PURESIZE, Stefan Monnier, 2009/10/24
- Re: BASE_PURESIZE, Dan Nicolaescu, 2009/10/25
- defcustom standard-value (was: Re: BASE_PURESIZE), Dan Nicolaescu, 2009/10/29
- Re: BASE_PURESIZE, Chong Yidong, 2009/10/24
- Re: BASE_PURESIZE, Dan Nicolaescu, 2009/10/24
Re: BASE_PURESIZE, Dan Nicolaescu, 2009/10/23
Re: BASE_PURESIZE, Juanma Barranquero, 2009/10/23