overflow pure space

overflow pure space

[Robert J. Chassell]

This morning's GNU Emacs CVS snapshot, Wed, 2006 Jul  5  11:47 UTC
GNU Emacs 22.0.50.20 (i686-pc-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version 2.8.18) 
started with

    src/emacs -Q -D &

I saw

    Warning (initialization): Building Emacs overflowed pure space.
    (See the node Pure Storage in the Lisp manual for details.)

An additional 5 kilobytes of pure storage ended the problem; perhaps
less was needed, but five is what I added.  With nothing else slowing
the machine, it takes me more than 24 minutes to `make bootfast' so
please do not ask me to try different amounts of pure storage.

Did someone do something that caused this in the GTK+ version but not
in others?

-- 
    Robert J. Chassell                         
    bob@rattlesnake.com                         GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
    http://www.rattlesnake.com                  http://www.teak.cc

Re: overflow pure space

[Chong Yidong]

"Robert J. Chassell" <bob@rattlesnake.com> writes:

> This morning's GNU Emacs CVS snapshot, Wed, 2006 Jul  5  11:47 UTC
> GNU Emacs 22.0.50.20 (i686-pc-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version 2.8.18) 
> started with
>
>     src/emacs -Q -D &
>
> I saw
>
>     Warning (initialization): Building Emacs overflowed pure space.
>     (See the node Pure Storage in the Lisp manual for details.)
>
> Did someone do something that caused this in the GTK+ version but not
> in others?

I saw this too, and have checked in a patch to increment puresize.

Re: overflow pure space

[Jan Djärv]

Robert J. Chassell skrev:
> This morning's GNU Emacs CVS snapshot, Wed, 2006 Jul  5  11:47 UTC
> GNU Emacs 22.0.50.20 (i686-pc-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version 2.8.18) 
> started with
> 
>     src/emacs -Q -D &
> 
> I saw
> 
>     Warning (initialization): Building Emacs overflowed pure space.
>     (See the node Pure Storage in the Lisp manual for details.)
> 
> An additional 5 kilobytes of pure storage ended the problem; perhaps
> less was needed, but five is what I added.  With nothing else slowing
> the machine, it takes me more than 24 minutes to `make bootfast' so
> please do not ask me to try different amounts of pure storage.
> 
> Did someone do something that caused this in the GTK+ version but not
> in others?
> 

I don't know why only the GTK+ version get this.  I get it also.

	Jan D.

Re: overflow pure space

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Chong Yidong <cyd@stupidchicken.com>
> Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 11:42:03 -0400
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> >     Warning (initialization): Building Emacs overflowed pure space.
> >     (See the node Pure Storage in the Lisp manual for details.)
> >
> > Did someone do something that caused this in the GTK+ version but not
> > in others?
> 
> I saw this too, and have checked in a patch to increment puresize.

I'm not sure that was wise.  There's some mystery going on with
puresize; unfortunately I didn't have enough time to finish
investigating it based on Reiner's reports.  Perhaps someone could
pick up where I left off and find out the reason(s) for these
disparities.  The relevant thread is "Re: PURESIZE increased (again)".

Re: overflow pure space

[Chong Yidong]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> >     Warning (initialization): Building Emacs overflowed pure space.
>> >     (See the node Pure Storage in the Lisp manual for details.)
>> >
>> > Did someone do something that caused this in the GTK+ version but not
>> > in others?
>> 
>> I saw this too, and have checked in a patch to increment puresize.
>
> I'm not sure that was wise.  There's some mystery going on with
> puresize; unfortunately I didn't have enough time to finish
> investigating it based on Reiner's reports.  Perhaps someone could
> pick up where I left off and find out the reason(s) for these
> disparities.  The relevant thread is "Re: PURESIZE increased (again)".

FWIW, I think the puresize overflow came from the following change.

2006-07-04  Kenichi Handa  <handa@m17n.org>

	* international/mule-cmds.el (set-language-info): If LANG-ENV is
	the current one, don't call set-language-environment, but call one
	of set-language-environment-XXX to make INFO effective now.
	(set-language-environment): Call set-language-environment-XXX
	functions instead of doing the various setups directly.
	(set-language-environment-coding-systems): Delete argument eol-type.
	(set-language-environment-input-method)
	(set-language-environment-nonascii-translation)
	(set-language-environment-charset)
	(set-language-environment-fontset)
	(set-language-environment-unibyte): New functions.

Re: overflow pure space

[Miles Bader]

"Robert J. Chassell" <bob@rattlesnake.com> writes:
> With nothing else slowing the machine, it takes me more than 24
> minutes to `make bootfast' so please do not ask me to try different
> amounts of pure storage.

A bit off-topic, but why do you need "make bootfast"?  A simple "make"
should work after changing the puresize...

-Miles
-- 
"Though they may have different meanings, the cries of 'Yeeeee-haw!' and
 'Allahu akbar!' are, in spirit, not actually all that different."

Re: overflow pure space

[Robert J. Chassell]

   "Robert J. Chassell" <bob@rattlesnake.com> writes:
   > With nothing else slowing the machine, it takes me more than 24
   > minutes to `make bootfast' so please do not ask me to try different
   > amounts of pure storage.

   A bit off-topic, but why do you need "make bootfast"?  A simple "make"
   should work after changing the puresize...

Good point!

-- 
    Robert J. Chassell                         
    bob@rattlesnake.com                         GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
    http://www.rattlesnake.com                  http://www.teak.cc

Re: overflow pure space

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Cc: bob@rattlesnake.com, Kenichi Handa <handa@m17n.org>, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> From: Chong Yidong <cyd@stupidchicken.com>
> Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 14:44:48 -0400
> 
> FWIW, I think the puresize overflow came from the following change.
> 
> 2006-07-04  Kenichi Handa  <handa@m17n.org>
> 
> 	* international/mule-cmds.el (set-language-info): If LANG-ENV is
> 	the current one, don't call set-language-environment, but call one
> 	of set-language-environment-XXX to make INFO effective now.
> 	(set-language-environment): Call set-language-environment-XXX
> 	functions instead of doing the various setups directly.
> 	(set-language-environment-coding-systems): Delete argument eol-type.
> 	(set-language-environment-input-method)
> 	(set-language-environment-nonascii-translation)
> 	(set-language-environment-charset)
> 	(set-language-environment-fontset)
> 	(set-language-environment-unibyte): New functions.

The question is not what caused the recent addition to the pure space,
the question is why some people see overflow, while others don't, on
the same platform.

Re: overflow pure space

[YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu]

> The question is not what caused the recent addition to the pure
> space, the question is why some people see overflow, while others
> don't, on the same platform.

Maybe I'm not completely following the related threads, but at least
one can see such a difference as follows:

$ make bootstrap
-> 1210372 pure bytes used

$ cd lisp
$ make bootstrap-clean
$ make compile EMACS=../src/emacs
$ cd ..
$ make clean
$ make
-> 1209036 pure bytes used
(on Mac OS X 10.4.7, X11)

I observed that .elc's compiled by bootstrap-emacs have `dolist'
expanded by cl.el, whereas those compiled by emacs have
subr.el-version.  Actually, bootstrap-emacs loads cl.el via preloaded
.el files that contain (eval-when-compile (require 'cl)), where
`eval-when-compile' just behaves like `progn'.

				     YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu
				mituharu@math.s.chiba-u.ac.jp

Re: overflow pure space

[Evil Boris]

For what it's worth, I have been using the following recipe (taken
from INSTALL.CVS, is it still valid advice?) for updating Emacs.  After
     cvs update 
I do:

% gmake
% cd lisp
% gmake recompile EMACS=../src/emacs
% cd ..
% gmake

I have noticed that the amount of pure storage needed in the initial
call to gmake is different from the one needed after recompile.
(sparc-sun-solaris2.7, X toolkit).  Is this to be expected?

Specifically, the last build I tried (Jul 4) required 1210824 pure
bytes in second iteration and 1208688 in the first (so the latest
increase does not suffice).

Cheers,
        --Boris