From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: PURESIZE increased (again) Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 18:13:18 +0300 Message-ID: References: <87lku5u6tx.fsf@pacem.orebokech.com> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1146323616 26886 80.91.229.2 (29 Apr 2006 15:13:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 15:13:36 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Apr 29 17:13:35 2006 Return-path: 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 1FZr8Y-00086F-7M for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 29 Apr 2006 17:13:34 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FZr8X-00050H-Jj for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 29 Apr 2006 11:13:33 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FZr8L-0004zp-5i for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 29 Apr 2006 11:13:21 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FZr8J-0004xa-S5 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 29 Apr 2006 11:13:20 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FZr8J-0004xG-He for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 29 Apr 2006 11:13:19 -0400 Original-Received: from [192.114.186.66] (helo=romy.inter.net.il) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1FZrBh-0000mO-DO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 29 Apr 2006 11:16:49 -0400 Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-198-67.inter.net.il [80.230.198.67]) by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) with ESMTP id EBQ39494 (AUTH halo1); Sat, 29 Apr 2006 18:13:17 +0300 (IDT) Original-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org In-reply-to: (message from Reiner Steib on Fri, 28 Apr 2006 19:15:53 +0200) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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:53593 Archived-At: > From: Reiner Steib > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 19:15:53 +0200 > > On Fri, Apr 28 2006, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > I think it's time to see whether the *.elc files we use are identical. > > Can you upload a couple of worst offenders, say, files.elc and > > simple.elc? I'd like to compare them to mine. > > http://theotp1.physik.uni-ulm.de/~ste/tmp/emacs/lisp/ > > (The *.elc files were compile on i686.) Thanks. I compared these with the versions compiled on a 32-bit Windows host, and they seem to be identical, except for 2 aspects: . Source files, whose absolute file names appear in a comment at the beginning of the .elc files. These are in comments, so they are obviously not the reason for the differences in pure space usage. . Minor differences in the defvar's and custom forms, like these: -(defvar backup-inhibited nil (#$ . 2763)) +(defvar backup-inhibited nil (#$ . 2801)) -(custom-declare-variable 'backup-by-copying 'nil '(#$ . -3035) :type 'boolean :group 'backup) +(custom-declare-variable 'backup-by-copying 'nil '(#$ . -3073) :type 'boolean :group 'backup) I think these differences are immaterial, but just so we don't miss something of importance: could someone who knows more than myself about the byte-compiled code please tell what are those numbers that differ between the two systems? Meanwhile, I will try to prepare a GDB session that we could use to compare the pure space allocation during loadup. Thanks again for working on this.