Re: Building Emacs overflowed pure space

[Luc Teirlinck <teirllm@dms.auburn.edu>]

Eli Zaretskii wrote:

   No, this cannot explain the differences I was trying to investigate,
   because I made a point, as part of my testing, of building Emacs both
   with and without bootstrap.  I got the same numbers in both cases.

On the other hand, I guess that you read the following two messages in
which two people reported seeing a difference in pure-bytes-used
depending on the way they compiled Emacs?

   Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 20:01:25 +0900
   From: YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu <mituharu@math.s.chiba-u.ac.jp>
   Organization: Faculty of Science, Chiba University
   Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
   Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+teirllm=mail.auburn.edu@gnu.org

   > The question is not what caused the recent addition to the pure
   > space, the question is why some people see overflow, while others
   > don't, on the same platform.

   Maybe I'm not completely following the related threads, but at least
   one can see such a difference as follows:

   $ make bootstrap
   -> 1210372 pure bytes used

   $ cd lisp
   $ make bootstrap-clean
   $ make compile EMACS=../src/emacs
   $ cd ..
   $ make clean
   $ make
   -> 1209036 pure bytes used
   (on Mac OS X 10.4.7, X11)

   I observed that .elc's compiled by bootstrap-emacs have `dolist'
   expanded by cl.el, whereas those compiled by emacs have
   subr.el-version.  Actually, bootstrap-emacs loads cl.el via preloaded
   .el files that contain (eval-when-compile (require 'cl)), where
   `eval-when-compile' just behaves like `progn'.

					YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu
				   mituharu@math.s.chiba-u.ac.jp


   X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
   From: Evil Boris <evilborisnet@netscape.net>
   Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 07:40:47 -0400
   X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 207-38-193-43.c3-0.wsd-ubr1.qens-wsd.ny.cable.rcn.com
   Cancel-Lock: sha1:oxVdsPt4RABMvFYyjLvvrf0IEG0=
   Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+teirllm=mail.auburn.edu@gnu.org


   For what it's worth, I have been using the following recipe (taken
   from INSTALL.CVS, is it still valid advice?) for updating Emacs.  After
	cvs update 
   I do:

   % gmake
   % cd lisp
   % gmake recompile EMACS=../src/emacs
   % cd ..
   % gmake

   I have noticed that the amount of pure storage needed in the initial
   call to gmake is different from the one needed after recompile.
   (sparc-sun-solaris2.7, X toolkit).  Is this to be expected?

   Specifically, the last build I tried (Jul 4) required 1210824 pure
   bytes in second iteration and 1208688 in the first (so the latest
   increase does not suffice).

   Cheers,
	   --Boris