From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Building Emacs overflowed pure space Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 05:56:03 +0300 Message-ID: References: <7dbe73ed0607180138x35e9d9bft3e42f20cb369795c@mail.gmail.com> <200607181855.k6IItgAV027751@jane.dms.auburn.edu> <200607182201.k6IM1fjg001522@jane.dms.auburn.edu> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1153277791 7345 80.91.229.2 (19 Jul 2006 02:56:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 02:56:31 +0000 (UTC) Cc: mathias.dahl@gmail.com, rms@gnu.org, ralphm@members.fsf.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jul 19 04:56:30 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 1G32Ec-0007wj-De for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 19 Jul 2006 04:56:26 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G32Eb-0003fP-UI for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 18 Jul 2006 22:56:25 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1G32EM-0003f0-DI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Jul 2006 22:56:10 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1G32EL-0003eO-Bx for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Jul 2006 22:56:10 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G32EL-0003eD-4f for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Jul 2006 22:56:09 -0400 Original-Received: from [192.114.186.20] (helo=nitzan.inter.net.il) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1G32HK-0005CR-DY; Tue, 18 Jul 2006 22:59:14 -0400 Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-65-235.inter.net.il [80.230.65.235]) by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) with ESMTP id EFB58045 (AUTH halo1); Wed, 19 Jul 2006 05:55:58 +0300 (IDT) Original-To: Luc Teirlinck In-reply-to: <200607182201.k6IM1fjg001522@jane.dms.auburn.edu> (message from Luc Teirlinck on Tue, 18 Jul 2006 17:01:41 -0500 (CDT)) 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:57308 Archived-At: > Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 17:01:41 -0500 (CDT) > From: Luc Teirlinck > CC: emacs-devel@gnu.org, rms@gnu.org, ralphm@members.fsf.org, > mathias.dahl@gmail.com > > Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > No, this cannot explain the differences I was trying to investigate, > because I made a point, as part of my testing, of building Emacs both > with and without bootstrap. I got the same numbers in both cases. > > On the other hand, I guess that you read the following two messages in > which two people reported seeing a difference in pure-bytes-used > depending on the way they compiled Emacs? Yes, I've read it. But note that even those messages talk about a small discrepancy (1300 to 2200 bytes), whereas the differences I was looking into were much larger.