From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ken Raeburn Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: PURESIZE increased (again) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 19:16:03 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87lku5u6tx.fsf@pacem.orebokech.com> <200604272212.k3RMCe4C001158@jane.dms.auburn.edu> <200604272253.k3RMreIx001541@jane.dms.auburn.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v749.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1146179823 32182 80.91.229.2 (27 Apr 2006 23:17:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 23:17:03 +0000 (UTC) Cc: eliz@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Apr 28 01:16:54 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 1FZFj3-0008Nm-12 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 28 Apr 2006 01:16:45 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FZFj2-0005B0-Dd for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 19:16:44 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FZFiV-0004zA-Q7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 19:16:11 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FZFiT-0004xE-RY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 19:16:11 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FZFiT-0004x5-Nu for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 19:16:09 -0400 Original-Received: from [63.240.77.84] (helo=sccrmhc14.comcast.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1FZFlQ-0008MY-Ef; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 19:19:12 -0400 Original-Received: from raeburn.org (c-65-96-168-237.hsd1.ma.comcast.net[65.96.168.237]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc14) with ESMTP id <20060427231605014002314le>; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 23:16:05 +0000 Original-Received: from [18.18.1.160] (NOME-KING.MIT.EDU [18.18.1.160]) by raeburn.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k3RNG4Jv002720; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 19:16:04 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <200604272253.k3RMreIx001541@jane.dms.auburn.edu> Original-To: Luc Teirlinck X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.749.3) 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:53531 Archived-At: On Apr 27, 2006, at 18:53, Luc Teirlinck wrote: > I may be wrong. I got the impression that differences in, for > instance, the C library and even the actual version of, say glibc, did > matter, from, for instance, the following comment from alloc.c, which > seems to say that different versions of glibc waste different amounts > of memory on alignment. But maybe I misunderstood the comment. No, I think you got that right ... the runtime process size and efficiency of heap allocation can vary a lot depending on the libraries. But the pure storage in Emacs doesn't get allocated that way; it comes out of a statically allocated array named pure[] in alloc.c, which has its own allocation routines (pure_alloc and friends). Ken