[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: --with-native-compilation build failure on 32-bit systems
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: --with-native-compilation build failure on 32-bit systems |
Date: |
Thu, 18 Aug 2022 18:57:18 +0300 |
> From: Andrea Corallo <akrl@sdf.org>
> Cc: larsi@gnus.org, jrm@ftfl.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org, emacs@FreeBSD.org
> Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2022 14:50:23 +0000
>
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>
> >> From: Andrea Corallo <akrl@sdf.org>
> >> Cc: larsi@gnus.org, jrm@ftfl.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org, emacs@FreeBSD.org
> >> Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2022 14:09:45 +0000
> >>
> >> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> >>
> >> >> From: Andrea Corallo <akrl@sdf.org>
> >> >> Cc: larsi@gnus.org, jrm@ftfl.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org, emacs@FreeBSD.org
> >> >> Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2022 11:08:32 +0000
> >> >>
> >> >> On 64bit I get:
> >> >>
> >> >> emacs:0:Pure Lisp storage overflow (approx. 3366891 bytes needed)
> >> >>
> >> >> On 32:
> >> >>
> >> >> emacs:0:Pure Lisp storage overflow (approx. 2549794 bytes needed)
> >> >
> >> > That's soooo strange! If I start Emacs under GDB and print the value
> >> > of PURESIZE, I get 6000000 bytes in a 64-bit build and 4480000 bytes
> >> > in a 32-bit build --with-wide-int. What values do you see?
> >> >
> >> > Maybe the problem happens only in --without-x builds?
> >>
> >> I get 2000000 on the 32bit build and 3333333 on 64 bit. Both are indeed
> >> --without-x. According a to comment in puresize.h this has an effect.
> >
> > What is the value of SYSTEM_PURESIZE_EXTRA in both cases?
>
> Zero in both cases.
I'm confused. puresize.h says
#define BASE_PURESIZE (2750000 + SYSTEM_PURESIZE_EXTRA +
SITELOAD_PURESIZE_EXTRA)
[...]
#define PURESIZE (BASE_PURESIZE * PURESIZE_RATIO * PURESIZE_CHECKING_RATIO)
So even if PURESIZE_RATIO and PURESIZE_CHECKING_RATIO are both 1, how
come you get 2000000 in the 32-bit build, when SYSTEM_PURESIZE_EXTRA
is zero? I must be missing something.
- Re: --with-native-compilation build failure on 32-bit systems, (continued)
- Re: --with-native-compilation build failure on 32-bit systems, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/08/18
- Re: --with-native-compilation build failure on 32-bit systems, Andrea Corallo, 2022/08/18
- Re: --with-native-compilation build failure on 32-bit systems, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/08/18
- Re: --with-native-compilation build failure on 32-bit systems, Andrea Corallo, 2022/08/18
- Re: --with-native-compilation build failure on 32-bit systems, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/08/18
- Re: --with-native-compilation build failure on 32-bit systems, Andrea Corallo, 2022/08/18
- Re: --with-native-compilation build failure on 32-bit systems, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/08/18
- Re: --with-native-compilation build failure on 32-bit systems, Andrea Corallo, 2022/08/18
- Re: --with-native-compilation build failure on 32-bit systems, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/08/18
- Re: --with-native-compilation build failure on 32-bit systems, Andrea Corallo, 2022/08/18
- Re: --with-native-compilation build failure on 32-bit systems,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: --with-native-compilation build failure on 32-bit systems, Andrea Corallo, 2022/08/18
- Re: --with-native-compilation build failure on 32-bit systems, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/08/18
- Re: --with-native-compilation build failure on 32-bit systems, Andrea Corallo, 2022/08/18
- Re: --with-native-compilation build failure on 32-bit systems, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/08/19
- Re: --with-native-compilation build failure on 32-bit systems, Andrea Corallo, 2022/08/19
- Re: --with-native-compilation build failure on 32-bit systems, Lars Ingebrigtsen, 2022/08/09