From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel
Subject: Re: PURESIZE increased (again)
Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 22:55:15 +0300
Message-ID: <u64jaqf30.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <ur73yyp4g.fsf@gnu.org> <87lku5u6tx.fsf@pacem.orebokech.com>
	<jek69pogzf.fsf@sykes.suse.de> <umzelzcbg.fsf@gnu.org>
	<v9ejzsb36t.fsf@marauder.physik.uni-ulm.de> <uwtdkulm9.fsf@gnu.org>
	<v9odyw2c54.fsf@marauder.physik.uni-ulm.de> <ulktzv07f.fsf@gnu.org>
	<v9fyk0o38r.fsf@marauder.physik.uni-ulm.de> <u1wvihhya.fsf@gnu.org>
	<v964ku8yyr.fsf@marauder.physik.uni-ulm.de> <uslnyfejm.fsf@gnu.org>
	<v94q0dkfon.fsf@marauder.physik.uni-ulm.de> <uk699fz9s.fsf@gnu.org>
	<v9fyjxei46.fsf@marauder.physik.uni-ulm.de> <u7j58fm9d.fsf@gnu.org>
	<v9lksj713l.fsf@marauder.physik.uni-ulm.de> <uhd32cv5z.fsf@gnu.org>
	<v9d5diibsr.fsf@marauder.physik.uni-ulm.de> <uodx2qnoa.fsf@gnu.org>
	<jewtbqz2pm.fsf@sykes.suse.de>
Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org
X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1149882938 15434 80.91.229.2 (9 Jun 2006 19:55:38 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 19:55:38 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jun 09 21:55:37 2006
Return-path: <emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org
Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165])
	by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Fon4u-00052t-MU
	for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 09 Jun 2006 21:55:32 +0200
Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Fon4u-0003VE-4T
	for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 09 Jun 2006 15:55:32 -0400
Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Fon4i-0003UX-DS
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Jun 2006 15:55:20 -0400
Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Fon4f-0003Tj-PH
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Jun 2006 15:55:19 -0400
Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fon4f-0003Tg-JK
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Jun 2006 15:55:17 -0400
Original-Received: from [192.114.186.20] (helo=nitzan.inter.net.il)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1FonCm-0007gH-Ce
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Jun 2006 16:03:40 -0400
Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-209-89.inter.net.il
	[80.230.209.89]) by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA)
	with ESMTP id DRE33703 (AUTH halo1);
	Fri, 9 Jun 2006 22:55:15 +0300 (IDT)
Original-To: Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de>
In-reply-to: <jewtbqz2pm.fsf@sykes.suse.de> (message from Andreas Schwab on
	Fri, 09 Jun 2006 18:57:41 +0200)
X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." <emacs-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.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://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:55801
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel/55801>

> From: Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de>
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 18:57:41 +0200
> 
> 9.2 has gcc 3.3.4, whereas 10.0 has 4.0.2.

Thanks.

> > Can people who know about SUSE think of any differences between these
> > two versions that could explain the difference in pure space usage?
> 
> I could think of data alignment being an issue

The overflow happens on 9.2, but not on 10.0.  Is it plausible that
GCC 3.3.4 on SuSe 9.2 produces code with higher alignment requirements
than GCC 4.0.2 on SuSe 10.0?