From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Question about memory usage Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2018 09:13:44 -0400 Message-ID: References: <83sh8c6byb.fsf@gnu.org> <838ta45upw.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1522761305 8529 195.159.176.226 (3 Apr 2018 13:15:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2018 13:15:05 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) 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 15:15:00 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 1f3Lm5-00022g-FP for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 03 Apr 2018 15:14:57 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:33723 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f3Lo9-0005Zq-9a for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 03 Apr 2018 09:17:05 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48210) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f3Ll8-0003tJ-A8 for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Apr 2018 09:13:59 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f3Ll2-00020H-NG for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Apr 2018 09:13:58 -0400 Original-Received: from [195.159.176.226] (port=42400 helo=blaine.gmane.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f3Ll2-0001zr-FG for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Apr 2018 09:13:52 -0400 Original-Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1f3Liw-0006ff-H6 for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Apr 2018 15:11:42 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 17 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org Cancel-Lock: sha1:xW7PjY++CvrWLoT1shzJ4F8E9As= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 195.159.176.226 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:116321 Archived-At: >> >> (while t >> >> (with-temp-buffer >> >> (setq buffer-undo-list nil) >> >> (insert "a"))) >> [...] >> > To answer your question: yes, I think this is expected, given that you >> > set buffer-undo-list to nil (what is the purpose of that, btw?). If >> Hmm... why would setting this var make any significant difference here? > Because the variable is on/referenced via the stack, I suppose. I don't follow. At the end of each iteration of the loop, we kill the temp buffer, so the effect of having set its buffer-undo-list slot or not should be negligible (or more specifically: this effect should only exist until the next GC). Stefan