Re: PURESIZE increased (again)

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 12:29:07 -0500 (CDT)
> From: Luc Teirlinck <teirllm@dms.auburn.edu>
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> If you have so little memory that 170K is worth worrying about, you
> quite simply have not enough memory to run Emacs (and _definitely_ not
> enough memory to run things like Gnome, KDE or common web browsers
> like Mozilla).  If you have so little memory that even 10K is
> non-negligible, I have no idea what you could run.  Not even vi, which
> takes exactly 1 Meg.  Since I doubt that vi really requires _exactly_ 1M,
> even vi, which is especially designed to work on systems with very
> little memory, does not seem to care about small fudge factors like 10K.

Luc, you simply misunderstand what I said, and so your arguments
_completely_ miss the point, so much so that they are almost absurd.

My point was twofold:

 . 10KB of memory well used is nothing to worry about.  However, 10KB
   of _wasted_ memory is something I don't dismiss too easily, because
   there are other programs running on the same machine, and while
   10KB for Emacs is a negligible amount, it is certainly _not_ so for
   a program with a 50KB footprint that needs to run at the same time.

 . My original motivation for insisting to understand the growth was
   that there could be some other factor at work here (a.k.a. ``bug'').

Now please let's stop this thread because it threatens to deteriorate
into mocking the subject, and the original problem was resolved
already.