From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Improving emacs process performance (for free?) Date: 27 May 2004 11:02:30 +0200 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <8296-Thu27May2004095925+0300-eliz@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1085650076 14899 80.91.224.253 (27 May 2004 09:27:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 09:27:56 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Thu May 27 11:27:39 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1BTHAo-0003ou-00 for ; Thu, 27 May 2004 11:27:38 +0200 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1BTHAo-0002a1-00 for ; Thu, 27 May 2004 11:27:38 +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 1BTGna-0006xW-1A for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Thu, 27 May 2004 05:03:38 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.34) id 1BTGn1-0006wz-9V for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 27 May 2004 05:03:03 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.34) id 1BTGmT-0006pf-PU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 27 May 2004 05:03:02 -0400 Original-Received: from [212.88.64.25] (helo=mail-relay.sonofon.dk) by monty-python.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BTGmT-0006pU-22 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 27 May 2004 05:02:29 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail 42346 invoked from network); 27 May 2004 09:02:27 -0000 Original-Received: from unknown (HELO kfs-l.imdomain.dk.cua.dk) (213.83.150.2) by 0 with SMTP; 27 May 2004 09:02:27 -0000 Original-To: Eli Zaretskii In-Reply-To: <8296-Thu27May2004095925+0300-eliz@gnu.org> Original-Lines: 25 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:24010 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:24010 "Eli Zaretskii" writes: > > 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? My change uses extra 9K on the stack in read_process_output. Since that function can call a filter, which in turn calls accept-process-output (etc), you may look at perhaps 3*9K xtra on the stack. Also, read_process_output calls decode_coding_string which may allocate 16K on the stack. So a minimum stack usage would be 3*10+16 = 46KB + what's allocated elsewhere. Pretty close to 64K if you ask me :-| -- Kim F. Storm http://www.cua.dk