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: PURESIZE increased (again) Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 08:36:56 +0300 Message-ID: References: <87lku5u6tx.fsf@pacem.orebokech.com> <16F5541A-23E7-473C-A4D5-61E3B6930526@raeburn.org> <85ejzihcet.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1146202648 24874 80.91.229.2 (28 Apr 2006 05:37:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 05:37:28 +0000 (UTC) Cc: raeburn@raeburn.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Apr 28 07:37:26 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 1FZLfS-0006Fa-D7 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 28 Apr 2006 07:37:26 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FZLfR-0001x8-V4 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 28 Apr 2006 01:37:25 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FZLez-0001s2-Mp for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Apr 2006 01:36:57 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FZLex-0001rP-OL for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Apr 2006 01:36:56 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FZLex-0001rL-GR for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Apr 2006 01:36:55 -0400 Original-Received: from [192.114.186.66] (helo=romy.inter.net.il) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1FZLhy-0002R6-Bl; Fri, 28 Apr 2006 01:40:02 -0400 Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-83-130-215-212.inter.net.il [83.130.215.212]) by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) with ESMTP id EBL95648 (AUTH halo1); Fri, 28 Apr 2006 08:36:47 +0300 (IDT) Original-To: David Kastrup In-reply-to: <85ejzihcet.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> (message from David Kastrup on Fri, 28 Apr 2006 00:38:34 +0200) 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:53541 Archived-At: > Cc: Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org > From: David Kastrup > Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 00:38:34 +0200 > > Not necessarily. Most filenames are written to accommodate 8+3. so if > we have 12345678.el\0, this is twelve bytes. The same with .elc might > require sixteen bytes after alignment. As I wrote elsewhere, we need to explain several KB per .elc file, so a few bytes of difference won't do, even if the file names are stored.