From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: setting an optimal value of gc-cons-threshold Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 06:19:14 +0300 Message-ID: References: <200708280535.l7S5Zen9013844@localhost.localdomain> <200708292341.l7TNfxYn005120@localhost.localdomain> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1188443979 17542 80.91.229.12 (30 Aug 2007 03:19:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 03:19:39 +0000 (UTC) To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Aug 30 05:19:35 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IQaZD-00035U-BN for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 30 Aug 2007 05:19:35 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IQaZC-0004v3-Qb for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 29 Aug 2007 23:19:34 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IQaYy-0004uq-Vy for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Aug 2007 23:19:21 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IQaYw-0004ue-Lu for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Aug 2007 23:19:19 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IQaYw-0004ub-Ed for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Aug 2007 23:19:18 -0400 Original-Received: from heller.inter.net.il ([213.8.233.23]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IQaYw-0001M1-43 for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Aug 2007 23:19:18 -0400 Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-44-235.inter.net.il [80.230.44.235]) by heller.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3a-GA) with ESMTP id DMK90493 (AUTH halo1); Thu, 30 Aug 2007 06:19:14 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: <200708292341.l7TNfxYn005120@localhost.localdomain> (message from Xavier Maillard on Thu, 30 Aug 2007 01:41:59 +0200) X-Detected-Kernel: FreeBSD 4.7-5.2 (or MacOS X 10.2-10.4) (2) X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:46966 Archived-At: > Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 01:41:59 +0200 > From: Xavier Maillard > CC: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org > Jabber-ID: xma01@jabber.fr > > The answer, based on experience in both increasing and decreasing the > value, is to use the default. It is tuned quite well to strike the > balance between too frequent GCs and ones that are far apart, but take > an annoyingly long time. > > Although I think you are right, I remember having been advised to > do so To do what? > after having encountered errors such as with `max-specpdl-size' > being too small/high (depending on the case). Does it sound > possible to you ? If you are asking whether it would make sense to change the GC limit after max-specpdl-size errors, then no, I don't see any connection between those two.