From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@gnu.org>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel
Subject: Re: Improving emacs process performance (for free?)
Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 09:59:26 +0200
Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org
Message-ID: <8296-Thu27May2004095925+0300-eliz@gnu.org>
References: <m3iseihohi.fsf@kfs-l.imdomain.dk>
Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org
X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1085646246 5867 80.91.224.253 (27 May 2004 08:24:06 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 08:24:06 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Thu May 27 10:23:56 2004
Return-path: <emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org>
Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244])
	by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 1BTGB9-0008Dx-00
	for <emacs-devel@deer.gmane.org>; Thu, 27 May 2004 10:23:55 +0200
Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173])
	by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 1BTGB9-0000ym-01
	for <emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org>; Thu, 27 May 2004 10:23:55 +0200
Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34)
	id 1BTFWA-0003bx-I7
	for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Thu, 27 May 2004 03:41:34 -0400
Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.34)
	id 1BTF0T-0006Ji-Ty
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 27 May 2004 03:08:55 -0400
Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.34)
	id 1BTEzv-0006CR-6j
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 27 May 2004 03:08:46 -0400
Original-Received: from [192.114.186.23] (helo=aragorn.inter.net.il)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BTEzu-0006C9-Kw
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 27 May 2004 03:08:14 -0400
Original-Received: from zaretski (pns03-196-231.inter.net.il [80.230.196.231])
	by aragorn.inter.net.il (MOS 3.4.6-GR) with ESMTP id CYL28209;
	Thu, 27 May 2004 10:01:20 +0300 (IDT)
Original-To: storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm)
X-Mailer: emacs 21.3.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
In-reply-to: <m3iseihohi.fsf@kfs-l.imdomain.dk> (storm@cua.dk)
X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." <emacs-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mail.gnu.org/pipermail/emacs-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org
Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:24006
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:24006

> From: storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm)
> Date: 26 May 2004 23:23:21 +0200
> 
> The buffer is allocated on the stack (with alloca), so it could be a
> problem on systems with limited stack size -- do we still have such
> systems?

How much limited is ``limited''?  Can you give a quantitative
estimate?