From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Question about memory usage Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2018 18:16:09 +0300 Message-ID: <83vad848xy.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83sh8c6byb.fsf@gnu.org> <838ta45upw.fsf@gnu.org> <834lks5qvv.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1522768503 7298 195.159.176.226 (3 Apr 2018 15:15:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2018 15:15:03 +0000 (UTC) To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Apr 03 17:14:59 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1f3NeE-0001mN-Jh for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 03 Apr 2018 17:14:58 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42018 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f3NgG-0002lH-6h for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 03 Apr 2018 11:17:04 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59073) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f3NfJ-0002iN-6v for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Apr 2018 11:16:09 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f3NfF-00030B-4B for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Apr 2018 11:16:05 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:44291) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f3NfF-0002zm-16 for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Apr 2018 11:16:01 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=2816 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1f3NfE-0004D5-DQ for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Apr 2018 11:16:00 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Stefan Monnier on Tue, 03 Apr 2018 10:27:56 -0400) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "help-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:116324 Archived-At: > From: Stefan Monnier > Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2018 10:27:56 -0400 > > > As I said: maybe I misunderstand what you are asking. So let me say > > something that perhaps better matches your question: a temporary > > buffer has its undo turned off, but setting buffer-undo-list to nil > > turns this on again, so inserting a character into the buffer conses > > stuff onto the undo-list. > > Yes, but that undo-list is local to the buffer, so once we kill the > buffer (at the end of each iteration) this should be reclaimable. Why do you think it isn't reclaimed? AFAIU, the issue was to explain why the memory footprint grows, nothing was said about how much of that memory is free for reuse. My point is that activating the undo-list would use more of the "normal" heap memory, in contrast to using only/mostly buffer text memory without that.