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, 22 Apr 2006 16:15:50 +0300 Message-ID: References: <87lku5u6tx.fsf@pacem.orebokech.com> <200604212310.k3LNA3Jp018780@jane.dms.auburn.edu> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1145711771 20327 80.91.229.2 (22 Apr 2006 13:16:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 13:16:11 +0000 (UTC) Cc: romain@orebokech.com, teirllm@dms.auburn.edu, Reiner.Steib@gmx.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Apr 22 15:16:08 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 1FXHy2-0008KX-NG for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2006 15:16:07 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FXHy2-0007cM-4g for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2006 09:16:06 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FXHxs-0007cE-2N for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2006 09:15:56 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FXHxq-0007bg-JC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2006 09:15:54 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FXHxq-0007bY-5o for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 22 Apr 2006 09:15:54 -0400 Original-Received: from [192.114.186.20] (helo=nitzan.inter.net.il) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1FXHzb-000526-58; Sat, 22 Apr 2006 09:17:43 -0400 Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-83-130-212-1.inter.net.il [83.130.212.1]) by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) with ESMTP id DEJ38955 (AUTH halo1); Sat, 22 Apr 2006 16:15:49 +0300 (IDT) Original-To: "Miles Bader" In-reply-to: (miles@gnu.org) 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:53231 Archived-At: > Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 20:35:05 +0900 > From: "Miles Bader" > Cc: "Luc Teirlinck" , romain@orebokech.com, > Reiner.Steib@gmx.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org > > On 4/22/06, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > I think we simply > > _must_ understand why on similar systems the numbers are so different > > Why? What's the _downside_ of adding a fudge factor to puresize? It makes the memory footprint larger. > It's nice to understand every detail, If you don't understand the problem, how do you know you indeed fixed it? How do you know there isn't some other factor at work here? > but sometimes it's not worth the effort. What effort? It took me 30 seconds to run temacs under GDB to produce the data, and another 5 minutes to write and run an Awk one-liner to process the data into the table I posted. I wish all problems I ever have to explore will take this little effort.