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: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 21:53:15 +0300 Message-ID: References: <87lku5u6tx.fsf@pacem.orebokech.com> <200604212310.k3LNA3Jp018780@jane.dms.auburn.edu> <200604230159.k3N1xpBu021881@jane.dms.auburn.edu> <87zmicgucs.fsf@olgas.newt.com> <200604231729.k3NHT77L022853@jane.dms.auburn.edu> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1145818421 30535 80.91.229.2 (23 Apr 2006 18:53:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 18:53:41 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Apr 23 20:53:40 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 1FXjiF-0005E5-Cp for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 23 Apr 2006 20:53:39 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FXjiE-00039O-R0 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 23 Apr 2006 14:53:38 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FXji1-000393-Hb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Apr 2006 14:53:25 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FXji0-00038Z-GK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Apr 2006 14:53:25 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FXji0-00038W-Cy for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Apr 2006 14:53:24 -0400 Original-Received: from [192.114.186.66] (helo=romy.inter.net.il) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1FXjk4-00005t-6E for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Apr 2006 14:55:32 -0400 Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-84-228-236-24.inter.net.il [84.228.236.24]) by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) with ESMTP id EAN89531 (AUTH halo1); Sun, 23 Apr 2006 21:53:14 +0300 (IDT) Original-To: Luc Teirlinck In-reply-to: <200604231729.k3NHT77L022853@jane.dms.auburn.edu> (message from Luc Teirlinck on Sun, 23 Apr 2006 12:29:07 -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:53274 Archived-At: > Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 12:29:07 -0500 (CDT) > From: Luc Teirlinck > 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.