From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Luc Teirlinck Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: PURESIZE increased (again) Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 12:29:07 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <200604231729.k3NHT77L022853@jane.dms.auburn.edu> References: <87lku5u6tx.fsf@pacem.orebokech.com> <200604212310.k3LNA3Jp018780@jane.dms.auburn.edu> <200604230159.k3N1xpBu021881@jane.dms.auburn.edu> <87zmicgucs.fsf@olgas.newt.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1145813411 15899 80.91.229.2 (23 Apr 2006 17:30:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 17:30:11 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Apr 23 19:30:09 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FXiPI-0000x3-D5 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 23 Apr 2006 19:30:00 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FXiPH-0007Py-Tj for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 23 Apr 2006 13:29:59 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FXiP6-0007OT-IC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Apr 2006 13:29:48 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FXiP4-0007LN-Ou for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Apr 2006 13:29:48 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FXiP4-0007L6-LO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Apr 2006 13:29:46 -0400 Original-Received: from [131.204.53.104] (helo=manatee.dms.auburn.edu) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1FXiR7-0001v0-Tx for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Apr 2006 13:31:54 -0400 Original-Received: from jane.dms.auburn.edu (jane.dms.auburn.edu [131.204.53.201]) by manatee.dms.auburn.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k3NHTjJP000389; Sun, 23 Apr 2006 12:29:45 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: from jane.dms.auburn.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jane.dms.auburn.edu (8.13.4+Sun/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k3NHT7XR022856; Sun, 23 Apr 2006 12:29:07 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: (from teirllm@localhost) by jane.dms.auburn.edu (8.13.4+Sun/8.13.3/Submit) id k3NHT77L022853; Sun, 23 Apr 2006 12:29:07 -0500 (CDT) X-Authentication-Warning: jane.dms.auburn.edu: teirllm set sender to teirllm@dms.auburn.edu using -f Original-To: wohler@newt.com In-reply-to: <87zmicgucs.fsf@olgas.newt.com> (message from Bill Wohler on Sun, 23 Apr 2006 08:54:59 -0700) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:53267 Archived-At: Bill Wohler wrote: Eli Zaretskii writes: > Again, this is 170KB growth, certainly not a negligible amount of > memory. That growth is .35% of my 48 MB Emacs process, so for what it's worth, *I* think it's negligible ;-). When I suggested that it even _might_ be a problem, I somehow saw a zero too many, I thought it was 1.7M (I should have looked more carefully), in which case it could have been something that _might_ be worth worrying about. Given that it only is 170K, I agree that it is obvious that this increase represents no problem whatsoever and that we should not worry about it. When I start Emacs with `emacs -q -nbc', the original memory usage is 9856K. But when I start actually using it, the Megs start growing immediately. For instance, if all I do in my freshly launched Emacs, is `M-x customize-browse' and open all top level groups to get a basic overview (by clicking on the `+' next to it and then closing it back by clicking on the `-'), the memory used goes up to 19568K. (That is opening _only_ the top level groups, no subgroups at all.) And then something apparently added an extra 8K to it quite a while after I stopped using the Emacs (probably font-lock or redisplay). If you have so little memory that 170K is worth worrying about, you quite simply have not enough memory to run Emacs (and _definitely_ not enough memory to run things like Gnome, KDE or common web browsers like Mozilla). If you have so little memory that even 10K is non-negligible, I have no idea what you could run. Not even vi, which takes exactly 1 Meg. Since I doubt that vi really requires _exactly_ 1M, even vi, which is especially designed to work on systems with very little memory, does not seem to care about small fudge factors like 10K. Sincerely, Luc.