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: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 06:35:56 +0300 Message-ID: References: <87lku5u6tx.fsf@pacem.orebokech.com> <200604212310.k3LNA3Jp018780@jane.dms.auburn.edu> <200604230159.k3N1xpBu021881@jane.dms.auburn.edu> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1145763376 22672 80.91.229.2 (23 Apr 2006 03:36:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 03:36:16 +0000 (UTC) Cc: romain@orebokech.com, Reiner.Steib@gmx.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Apr 23 05:36:14 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 1FXVOL-0002KO-SW for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 23 Apr 2006 05:36:10 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FXVOL-0000hV-Cx for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2006 23:36:09 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FXVO9-0000h8-SD for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2006 23:35:57 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FXVO9-0000g9-8j for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2006 23:35:57 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FXVO9-0000g6-32 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2006 23:35:57 -0400 Original-Received: from [192.114.186.66] (helo=romy.inter.net.il) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1FXVQ4-0003yn-3G for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2006 23:37:56 -0400 Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-7-235.inter.net.il [80.230.7.235]) by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) with ESMTP id EAJ01073 (AUTH halo1); Sun, 23 Apr 2006 06:35:54 +0300 (IDT) Original-To: Luc Teirlinck In-reply-to: <200604230159.k3N1xpBu021881@jane.dms.auburn.edu> (message from Luc Teirlinck on Sat, 22 Apr 2006 20:59:51 -0500 (CDT)) 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:53251 Archived-At: > Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 20:59:51 -0500 (CDT) > From: Luc Teirlinck > CC: miles@gnu.org, romain@orebokech.com, Reiner.Steib@gmx.de, > emacs-devel@gnu.org > > Eli Zaretskii wrote" > > > Why? What's the _downside_ of adding a fudge factor to puresize? > > It makes the memory footprint larger. > > By a completely negligible percentage (a fraction of a percent), > obviously not enough to worry about or waste any time on trying to > reduce it further. I measure memory footprint in bytes, not in percents. 10KB is not negligible, IMHO, even if taken in isolation. > Comparing my present pure-bytes-used of 1200904 with the 1036280 from > an old CVS version of 2005-02-07, suggests that pure-bytes-used is > currently growing faster than 13 percent a year Again, this is 170KB growth, certainly not a negligible amount of memory.