Re: PURESIZE increased (again)

[Reiner Steib <reinersteib+gmane@imap.cc>]

On Sat, Apr 29 2006, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

>> From: Reiner Steib <reinersteib+gmane@imap.cc>
>> On Fri, Apr 28 2006, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> 
>> > I think it's time to see whether the *.elc files we use are identical.
>> > Can you upload a couple of worst offenders, say, files.elc and
>> > simple.elc?  I'd like to compare them to mine.
[...]
> I compared these with the versions compiled on a 32-bit Windows host,
> and they seem to be identical, except for 2 aspects:
>
>   . Source files, whose absolute file names appear in a comment at the
>     beginning of the .elc files.  These are in comments, so they are
>     obviously not the reason for the differences in pure space usage.
>
>   . Minor differences in the defvar's and custom forms, like these:
>
>     -(defvar backup-inhibited nil (#$ . 2763))
>     +(defvar backup-inhibited nil (#$ . 2801))
[...]
>
> Meanwhile, I will try to prepare a GDB session that we could use to
> compare the pure space allocation during loadup.

I just wanted to state that I still need to use
"-DSITELOAD_PURESIZE_EXTRA=100000" to avoid an overflow on x86_64
(GNU/Linux) even after the recent increase of BASE_PURESIZE[1].  90000
is not sufficient.  On i686 (GNU/Linux) I need 140000 (130000 is not
sufficient).

Bye, Reiner.

[1]
,----
| 2006-05-24  Luc Teirlinck  <teirllm@auburn.edu>
| 
| 	* puresize.h (BASE_PURESIZE): Increase to 1210000.
`----
-- 
       ,,,
      (o o)
---ooO-(_)-Ooo---  |  PGP key available  |  http://rsteib.home.pages.de/