From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: --with-native-compilation build failure on 32-bit systems Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2022 18:57:18 +0300 Message-ID: <83fshtfstd.fsf@gnu.org> References: <86k07nl9qe.fsf@phe.ftfl.ca> <87bksyc36k.fsf@gnus.org> <83h72lvf8g.fsf@gnu.org> <838rnmceq7.fsf@gnu.org> <83lermarzk.fsf@gnu.org> <83ilmpc2bi.fsf@gnu.org> <83h729c07k.fsf@gnu.org> <83fshtbsy0.fsf@gnu.org> <83k075fx6r.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="20980"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: larsi@gnus.org, jrm@ftfl.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org, emacs@FreeBSD.org To: Andrea Corallo Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Aug 18 17:58:14 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1oOhuQ-0005FF-DH for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 18 Aug 2022 17:58:14 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60996 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oOhuP-0004Lg-9G for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 18 Aug 2022 11:58:13 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:37336) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oOhth-0003cp-LA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Aug 2022 11:57:29 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:58074) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oOhtg-0001o1-Rq; Thu, 18 Aug 2022 11:57:28 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=x4gWeFjb7r38KH8MuNaOWegqHtvz21AcVvi4KjCr0Pg=; b=EQdNGEEqxX71 TarRL+fUS8j9ieWBzD6hcNr0cwTDo8p2wYoYxT9R4MS7SJRSzdatF//3HxpGaPVtz09rbHp2UdHSS TMcCSgY88JNo07laR4XOtvjpH0qgLOaQo5fGJy3UGDRILra1nZjUXTY8i/XBeNzG4S7o6nhmu9Wbm hEO3t+UqXuPfZXXAp6KMypXnrsGR82SQXXVNtEkmwdfsQzf+6MqO7mA5tznVP+gag9MPD19IKCqQf jNGoSlT+yYYGGIhzWTCRxqgtl9/socAB8PLLOAvBdQ776ML6u6r0xX0mgUm25meupO4UEj+S8m5st IsWa0rTaAuB52fxkDSaE5Q==; Original-Received: from [87.69.77.57] (port=1323 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oOhte-0004RT-JW; Thu, 18 Aug 2022 11:57:28 -0400 In-Reply-To: (message from Andrea Corallo on Thu, 18 Aug 2022 14:50:23 +0000) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:293613 Archived-At: > From: Andrea Corallo > 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 writes: > > >> From: Andrea Corallo > >> 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 writes: > >> > >> >> From: Andrea Corallo > >> >> 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.