Re: PURESIZE increased (again)

[Ken Raeburn <raeburn@raeburn.org>]

On Apr 28, 2006, at 01:29, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> From: Ken Raeburn <raeburn@raeburn.org>
>> Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 18:24:55 -0400
>>
>> The byte and object counts *should* be the same (uh, unless the
>> pathnames to the elc files are stored somewhere but el file pathnames
>> are not).

(Actually, I should've said the increases in the byte and object  
counts, when each .elc file is loaded.)

> Even if this is true (which I don't think it is), how can a stored
> name explain 20KB of difference?

It wouldn't, but if it does happen (and I don't think it does,  
either, but I don't recall for sure) it would be a reason for the  
numbers not to be *exactly* the same, so then a very small  
discrepancy wouldn't be a big problem.  But like you say, I don't  
think it happens.

>> It might also be useful to check that the .elc files you two are
>> getting (you've both done "make bootstrap", right?) are actually
>> similar.
>
> That's the point: how _could_ they be different?

Barring the obvious, like local hacks affecting the byte-code  
optimizer, or some local bug causing character encoding conversions  
to be applied to byte-code strings, I have no idea.  But since I have  
no other good idea how the 20K difference came up loading a .elc  
file, I figure breaking the problem down might help.  For example:  
First, confirm that some file foo.elc to be loaded is (functionally)  
the same, and that it consume different amounts of storage, on the  
two systems.  Then split it apart (binary search, one S-expression at  
a time, whatever) and see if there's some particular kind of  
expression in the .elc file that consumes different amounts of  
storage on the two systems.  If we know what it is, perhaps we can  
figure out why it's handled differently.  But if the files are  
different, then the problem isn't differing storage consumed by  
(identical) loaded objects, and we go off in a very different  
direction....

If people want to expend that much effort on it, of course.

Ken