* Any advantages to recompile Emacs...
@ 2008-12-10 7:51 Francis Moreau
2008-12-10 10:06 ` Peter Dyballa
[not found] ` <mailman.2441.1228903593.26697.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
0 siblings, 2 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Francis Moreau @ 2008-12-10 7:51 UTC (permalink / raw
To: help-gnu-emacs
Hello,
I'm always using Emacs with the '-nw' switch that is in console mode.
I'm wondering if I can recompile Emacs without the graphic support and
if there're any improvements (perhaps starting faster ?) in doing so.
Thanks
--
Francis
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Any advantages to recompile Emacs...
2008-12-10 7:51 Any advantages to recompile Emacs Francis Moreau
@ 2008-12-10 10:06 ` Peter Dyballa
[not found] ` <mailman.2441.1228903593.26697.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Peter Dyballa @ 2008-12-10 10:06 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Francis Moreau; +Cc: help-gnu-emacs
Am 10.12.2008 um 08:51 schrieb Francis Moreau:
> I'm wondering if I can recompile Emacs without the graphic support and
> if there're any improvements (perhaps starting faster ?) in doing so.
It's easy to do this: configure with --without-x. The binary will be
smaller and of course it will be able to load faster. (Although I
think GNU Emacs with windowing support can load at the same speed, so
the smaller file size can significantly save some millisecs. Each time.)
--
Greetings
Pete
You can learn many things from children. How much patience you have,
for instance.
– Franklin P. Jones
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Any advantages to recompile Emacs...
[not found] ` <mailman.2441.1228903593.26697.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
@ 2008-12-10 19:19 ` Francis Moreau
2008-12-11 18:19 ` Peter Dyballa
[not found] ` <mailman.2546.1229019594.26697.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
0 siblings, 2 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Francis Moreau @ 2008-12-10 19:19 UTC (permalink / raw
To: help-gnu-emacs
Peter Dyballa <Peter_Dyballa@Web.DE> writes:
> Am 10.12.2008 um 08:51 schrieb Francis Moreau:
>
>> I'm wondering if I can recompile Emacs without the graphic support and
>> if there're any improvements (perhaps starting faster ?) in doing so.
>
>
> It's easy to do this: configure with --without-x. The binary will be
> smaller and of course it will be able to load faster. (Although I
> think GNU Emacs with windowing support can load at the same speed, so
> the smaller file size can significantly save some millisecs. Each
> time.)
Do you mean that 'emacs -nw' with X support is slower to start than
emacs without X support ?
thanks
--
Francis
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Any advantages to recompile Emacs...
2008-12-10 19:19 ` Francis Moreau
@ 2008-12-11 18:19 ` Peter Dyballa
[not found] ` <mailman.2546.1229019594.26697.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
1 sibling, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Peter Dyballa @ 2008-12-11 18:19 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Francis Moreau; +Cc: help-gnu-emacs
Am 10.12.2008 um 20:19 schrieb Francis Moreau:
> Do you mean that 'emacs -nw' with X support is slower to start than
> emacs without X support ?
Yes, every time you should be able to determine a few msec difference
in launch time. The size of the binaries will vary, the number of
shared libraries used and already residing in memory will vary – all
the nsec and µsec saved will add ... every time!
This is from Apple's GNU Emacs without windowing support in Mac OS X
10.4.11:
time /usr/bin/emacs-21.2.1 -nw --no-init-file --no-site-file -kill
Time spent in user mode (CPU seconds) : 0.043s
Time spent in kernel mode (CPU seconds) : 0.030s
Total time : 0:00.11s
CPU utilisation (percentage) : 63.6%
My other self-compiled Emacsen (21.3.50, 22.1.50, 22.2, 22.3,
23.0.50, 23.0.60) show something like this:
time /sw/bin/emacs-21.3.50 -nw --no-init-file --no-site-file -kill
Time spent in user mode (CPU seconds) : 0.103s
Time spent in kernel mode (CPU seconds) : 0.094s
Total time : 0:00.30s
CPU utilisation (percentage) : 63.3%
or that:
time /sw/bin/emacs-22.3 -nw --no-init-file --no-site-file -kill
Time spent in user mode (CPU seconds) : 0.175s
Time spent in kernel mode (CPU seconds) : 0.076s
Total time : 0:00.33s
CPU utilisation (percentage) : 72.7%
time /usr/local/bin/emacs-23.0.60 -nw --no-init-file --no-site-file -
kill
Time spent in user mode (CPU seconds) : 0.201s
Time spent in kernel mode (CPU seconds) : 0.134s
Total time : 0:00.50s
CPU utilisation (percentage) : 66.0%
All measurements after a few invocations if each variant. Each
variant with windowing capabilities seems to initialise and restore
the terminal emulation (some flashing/wiping effect). Could be GNU
Emacs 19.28 is much much faster – at least in my memory and on my DEC
VTxxx terminal at work ...
--
Greetings
Pete
Well done is better than well said.
– Benjamin Franklin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Any advantages to recompile Emacs...
[not found] ` <mailman.2546.1229019594.26697.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
@ 2009-01-22 19:44 ` Francis Moreau
2009-01-22 21:19 ` Peter Dyballa
[not found] ` <mailman.5531.1232659201.26697.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
0 siblings, 2 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Francis Moreau @ 2009-01-22 19:44 UTC (permalink / raw
To: help-gnu-emacs
Peter Dyballa <Peter_Dyballa@Web.DE> writes:
> Am 10.12.2008 um 20:19 schrieb Francis Moreau:
>
>> Do you mean that 'emacs -nw' with X support is slower to start than
>> emacs without X support ?
>
>
> Yes, every time you should be able to determine a few msec difference
> in launch time. The size of the binaries will vary, the number of
> shared libraries used and already residing in memory will vary – all
> the nsec and µsec saved will add ... every time!
[...]
Sorry for digging out this thread, but I finally giving a try to build
emacs my self using the source code from CVS.
And one thing interesting is the size of the binary:
emacs 22.2 with X support: ~ 8.0Mo
emacs 23 without X support: ~ 14.5Mo
It's a huge difference, so now I'm wondering if I correctly built the
beast...
Any Idea ?
Thanks
--
Francis
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Any advantages to recompile Emacs...
2009-01-22 19:44 ` Francis Moreau
@ 2009-01-22 21:19 ` Peter Dyballa
2009-01-23 15:20 ` Eli Zaretskii
[not found] ` <mailman.5531.1232659201.26697.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
1 sibling, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Peter Dyballa @ 2009-01-22 21:19 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Francis Moreau; +Cc: help-gnu-emacs
Am 22.01.2009 um 20:44 schrieb Francis Moreau:
> emacs 22.2 with X support: ~ 8.0Mo
> emacs 23 without X support: ~ 14.5Mo
>
> It's a huge difference, so now I'm wondering if I correctly built the
> beast...
>
> Any Idea ?
Think of Unicode (8 bit -> 32 bit)! And if your hardware is 64 bit,
then GNU Emacs could have been configured and compiled for this,
using pointers that large. Did you compile in debug information? (And
GTK also consumes lots of disk space, look at my GNU Emacs 21.3.50
(also GCC 3.3)!)
On my Mac the Emacsen have:
7,490,192 26 Dez 01:23 emacs-22.3
10,166,896 14 Jan 15:27 emacs-23.0.60
13,836,700 20 Jul 2008 emacs-21.3.50
--
Greetings
Pete
Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to
build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying
to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning.
– Rich Cook
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Any advantages to recompile Emacs...
[not found] ` <mailman.5531.1232659201.26697.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
@ 2009-01-22 21:56 ` Francis Moreau
2009-01-22 22:33 ` Peter Dyballa
2009-01-22 23:14 ` Ian Eure
0 siblings, 2 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Francis Moreau @ 2009-01-22 21:56 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Peter Dyballa; +Cc: help-gnu-emacs
Peter Dyballa <Peter_Dyballa@Web.DE> writes:
> Think of Unicode (8 bit -> 32 bit)! And if your hardware is 64 bit,
> then GNU Emacs could have been configured and compiled for this,
> using pointers that large.
Does emacs embed many unicode strings ??
> Did you compile in debug information?
I haven't asked for when doing the './configure' thing so I wouldn't
expect to have such info...
[me checking]
Well, this 'configure' thing compiled emacs with the debug info
(damn!), so after striping emacs, the size looks more reasonable:
9.9M.
>
> (And GTK also consumes lots of disk space, look at my GNU Emacs
> 21.3.50 (also GCC 3.3)!)
Well I have asked to compile emacs without X support, so I don't think
GTK is the culprit.
thanks
--
Francis
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Any advantages to recompile Emacs...
2009-01-22 21:56 ` Francis Moreau
@ 2009-01-22 22:33 ` Peter Dyballa
2009-01-22 23:14 ` Ian Eure
1 sibling, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Peter Dyballa @ 2009-01-22 22:33 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Francis Moreau; +Cc: help-gnu-emacs
Am 22.01.2009 um 22:56 schrieb Francis Moreau:
> Does emacs embed many unicode strings ??
I don't know! 'strings <path to GNU Emacs> | wc -c' times 4 ... ?
>> (And GTK also consumes lots of disk space, look at my GNU Emacs
>> 21.3.50 (also GCC 3.3)!)
>
> Well I have asked to compile emacs without X support, so I don't think
> GTK is the culprit.
Yes, I read so. I used this as an excuse for 21.3.50's size.
--
Greetings
Pete
If you don't find it in the index, look very carefully through the
entire catalogue.
– Sears, Roebuck, and Co., Consumer's Guide, 1897
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Any advantages to recompile Emacs...
2009-01-22 21:56 ` Francis Moreau
2009-01-22 22:33 ` Peter Dyballa
@ 2009-01-22 23:14 ` Ian Eure
2009-01-23 8:26 ` Francis Moreau
1 sibling, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Ian Eure @ 2009-01-22 23:14 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Francis Moreau; +Cc: Peter Dyballa, help-gnu-emacs
On Jan 22, 2009, at 1:56 PM, Francis Moreau wrote:
> Peter Dyballa <Peter_Dyballa@Web.DE> writes:
>
>> Think of Unicode (8 bit -> 32 bit)! And if your hardware is 64 bit,
>> then GNU Emacs could have been configured and compiled for this,
>> using pointers that large.
>
> Does emacs embed many unicode strings ??
>
Probably not, and UTF-8 doesn't take any more space unless you use non-
ASCII characters. For plain text, it's the same size.
>> Did you compile in debug information?
>
> I haven't asked for when doing the './configure' thing so I wouldn't
> expect to have such info...
>
> [me checking]
>
> Well, this 'configure' thing compiled emacs with the debug info
> (damn!), so after striping emacs, the size looks more reasonable:
> 9.9M.
>
The default behavior of GCC is to include debugging symbols. You need
to explicitly remove them if they're not needed.
- Ian
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Any advantages to recompile Emacs...
2009-01-22 23:14 ` Ian Eure
@ 2009-01-23 8:26 ` Francis Moreau
2009-01-23 9:35 ` Alberto Luaces
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Francis Moreau @ 2009-01-23 8:26 UTC (permalink / raw
To: Ian Eure; +Cc: help-gnu-emacs
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 12:14 AM, Ian Eure <ian@digg.com> wrote:
>
> The default behavior of GCC is to include debugging symbols. You need to
> explicitly remove them if they're not needed.
I don't think so, you need to pass the famous '-g' switch for that
(fortuantely).
Thanks
--
Francis
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Any advantages to recompile Emacs...
2009-01-23 8:26 ` Francis Moreau
@ 2009-01-23 9:35 ` Alberto Luaces
0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Alberto Luaces @ 2009-01-23 9:35 UTC (permalink / raw
To: help-gnu-emacs
El Viernes 23 Enero 2009ES 09:26:22 Francis Moreau escribió:
> > The default behavior of GCC is to include debugging symbols. You need to
> > explicitly remove them if they're not needed.
>
> I don't think so, you need to pass the famous '-g' switch for that
> (fortuantely).
Anyway, you should have a "make install-strip" target available in the
configure generated Makefile.
Alberto
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Any advantages to recompile Emacs...
2009-01-22 21:19 ` Peter Dyballa
@ 2009-01-23 15:20 ` Eli Zaretskii
0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2009-01-23 15:20 UTC (permalink / raw
To: help-gnu-emacs
> From: Peter Dyballa <Peter_Dyballa@Web.DE>
> Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 22:19:47 +0100
> Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
>
>
> Am 22.01.2009 um 20:44 schrieb Francis Moreau:
>
> > emacs 22.2 with X support: ~ 8.0Mo
> > emacs 23 without X support: ~ 14.5Mo
> >
> > It's a huge difference, so now I'm wondering if I correctly built the
> > beast...
> >
> > Any Idea ?
>
> Think of Unicode (8 bit -> 32 bit)!
Unicode per se has no effect on the size of the Emacs binary, since
the internal representation of characters used by Emacs 23 is a
multibyte representation, as it was in previous versions of Emacs.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-01-23 15:20 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2008-12-10 7:51 Any advantages to recompile Emacs Francis Moreau
2008-12-10 10:06 ` Peter Dyballa
[not found] ` <mailman.2441.1228903593.26697.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
2008-12-10 19:19 ` Francis Moreau
2008-12-11 18:19 ` Peter Dyballa
[not found] ` <mailman.2546.1229019594.26697.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
2009-01-22 19:44 ` Francis Moreau
2009-01-22 21:19 ` Peter Dyballa
2009-01-23 15:20 ` Eli Zaretskii
[not found] ` <mailman.5531.1232659201.26697.help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
2009-01-22 21:56 ` Francis Moreau
2009-01-22 22:33 ` Peter Dyballa
2009-01-22 23:14 ` Ian Eure
2009-01-23 8:26 ` Francis Moreau
2009-01-23 9:35 ` Alberto Luaces
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this external index
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/org-mode.git
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.