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 08:22:23 +0300 Message-ID: References: <87lku5u6tx.fsf@pacem.orebokech.com> <200604272119.k3RLJ15n028730@jane.dms.auburn.edu> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1146201761 22919 80.91.229.2 (28 Apr 2006 05:22:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 05:22:41 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Apr 28 07:22:40 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 1FZLR4-0004Iu-6z for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 28 Apr 2006 07:22:34 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FZLR3-00040q-Ha for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 28 Apr 2006 01:22:33 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FZLQq-0003zN-1R for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Apr 2006 01:22:20 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FZLQo-0003yw-TG for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Apr 2006 01:22:19 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FZLQo-0003yp-JZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Apr 2006 01:22:18 -0400 Original-Received: from [192.114.186.20] (helo=nitzan.inter.net.il) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1FZLTs-000124-Mk for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Apr 2006 01:25:28 -0400 Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-83-130-215-212.inter.net.il [83.130.215.212]) by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) with ESMTP id DFP90430 (AUTH halo1); Fri, 28 Apr 2006 08:22:14 +0300 (IDT) Original-To: Luc Teirlinck In-reply-to: <200604272119.k3RLJ15n028730@jane.dms.auburn.edu> (message from Luc Teirlinck on Thu, 27 Apr 2006 16:19:01 -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:53537 Archived-At: > Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 16:19:01 -0500 (CDT) > From: Luc Teirlinck > CC: emacs-devel@gnu.org > > Of course, using different compilers or different C Libraries, > _including_ different version numbers for the same compiler or library > will not have any effect on the .el file, but it can definitely have > an effect on the .elc files. Different OS or different versions of > the same OS of course also can make a difference. As you wrote later, since pure storage comes out of a static array, it is hard to believe the OS or the compiler can make the difference. But for the record, the compiler I used was gcc 3.4.5. > As I already mentioned, talking about KB is meaningless in this > context, this is about average percentages. I don't know whether average is the right measure here (we won't know for sure until we discover the reason(s) for the discrepancy), but how's this: loading subr.elc took 14KB more in Rainer's build than in mine, bindings.elc took 23KB more, utf-16.elc took 15KB more, etc. I think these are very large differences. > But maybe variations tend to be larger for 64 bit than for 32? AFAIU the byte compiling, there should be no variation at all on the same architecture and OS, as long as the same files are loaded.