From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Luc Teirlinck Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: PURESIZE increased (again) Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 17:12:40 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <200604272212.k3RMCe4C001158@jane.dms.auburn.edu> References: <87lku5u6tx.fsf@pacem.orebokech.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1146176027 21161 80.91.229.2 (27 Apr 2006 22:13:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 22:13:47 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Apr 28 00:13:45 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 1FZEjx-00055S-Pf for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 28 Apr 2006 00:13:38 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FZEjx-00011M-6a for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 18:13:37 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FZEjl-00011C-US for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 18:13:25 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FZEjk-00010g-9s for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 18:13:25 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FZEjk-00010c-4U for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 18:13:24 -0400 Original-Received: from [131.204.53.104] (helo=manatee.dms.auburn.edu) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1FZEmj-0002XG-Jw; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 18:16:29 -0400 Original-Received: from jane.dms.auburn.edu (jane.dms.auburn.edu [131.204.53.201]) by manatee.dms.auburn.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k3RMDMnC018134; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 17:13:23 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: from jane.dms.auburn.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by jane.dms.auburn.edu (8.13.4+Sun/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k3RMCehe001161; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 17:12:40 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: (from teirllm@localhost) by jane.dms.auburn.edu (8.13.4+Sun/8.13.3/Submit) id k3RMCe4C001158; Thu, 27 Apr 2006 17:12:40 -0500 (CDT) X-Authentication-Warning: jane.dms.auburn.edu: teirllm set sender to teirllm@dms.auburn.edu using -f Original-To: eliz@gnu.org In-reply-to: (message from Eli Zaretskii on Thu, 27 Apr 2006 23:38:53 +0300) 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:53522 Archived-At: >>From my previous message: 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 On second thought, this seems less immediately obvious, from a purely "logical" point of view. But apparently, from the empirical evidence, differences in compiler, library or OS do seem to matter much more compiled Lisp files. Probably, the alignment issues are more complex for them. Sincerely, Luc.