From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: PURESIZE increased (again) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 08:42:42 +0200 Message-ID: <85slnyfbfh.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> References: <87lku5u6tx.fsf@pacem.orebokech.com> <16F5541A-23E7-473C-A4D5-61E3B6930526@raeburn.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1146206616 1950 80.91.229.2 (28 Apr 2006 06:43:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 06:43:36 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Ken Raeburn , emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Apr 28 08:43:29 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 1FZMhM-0005V9-E0 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 28 Apr 2006 08:43:28 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FZMhL-0008UU-Vu for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 28 Apr 2006 02:43:28 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FZMh9-0008UP-QQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Apr 2006 02:43:15 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FZMh9-0008U9-Dz for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Apr 2006 02:43:15 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FZMh9-0008U6-6L for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Apr 2006 02:43:15 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1FZMkE-00072C-7a for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Apr 2006 02:46:26 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lola.goethe.zz) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1FZMh7-0007nO-3l; Fri, 28 Apr 2006 02:43:13 -0400 Original-Received: by lola.goethe.zz (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 66E721D1FFCD; Fri, 28 Apr 2006 08:42:42 +0200 (CEST) Original-To: Eli Zaretskii In-Reply-To: (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Fri, 28 Apr 2006 08:29:51 +0300") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) 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:53543 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org >> From: Ken Raeburn >> 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). > > Even if this is true (which I don't think it is), how can a stored > name explain 20KB of difference? Maybe the principal data structure for a byte code passage takes a different size because of alignment or data type issues? -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum