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: bootstrap compiles C files twice Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 12:39:32 +0300 Message-ID: References: <4844F8E0.9080701@gnu.org> <1pbq2i17sh.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <6f8wxju1cb.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1212745455 23433 80.91.229.12 (6 Jun 2008 09:44:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 09:44:15 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Glenn Morris Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jun 06 11:44:48 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1K4YV5-0004AE-3C for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2008 11:44:47 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47347 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1K4YUH-0003dk-6q for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2008 05:43:57 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1K4YQm-0002cY-3l for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2008 05:40:20 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1K4YQi-0002bD-Cl for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2008 05:40:17 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=47128 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1K4YQh-0002aq-Bz for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Jun 2008 05:40:15 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout2.012.net.il ([84.95.2.4]:13621) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1K4YQd-0007Yy-Gq; Fri, 06 Jun 2008 05:40:11 -0400 Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([83.130.2.23]) by i_mtaout2.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) with ESMTPA id <0K2100F26CUUHNB0@i_mtaout2.012.net.il>; Fri, 06 Jun 2008 12:55:06 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: <6f8wxju1cb.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Solaris 9.1 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:98508 Archived-At: > From: Glenn Morris > Cc: jasonr@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 15:29:56 -0400 > > Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > I meant to say that there might be a good reason for compiling the > > sources twice, and that understanding how and why did we get rid of > > the -DPURESIZE= switch on the first of these two compilations might > > help us understand that good reason, or realize that there isn't > > one. > > I can't imagine that you mean there's a reason to do two identical > compilations An identical compiler command line does not necessarily mean an identical object file, if, for example, the source file includes something that was changed in between. Anyway, now you know what I meant; time for me to stop talking and for you to make a decision. > The fact that dumping bootstrap-emacs reports: 109423 pure bytes used As Stefan pointed out, that number should not be used as a measure of how large should the pure[] array be, since bootstrap-emacs overflows the pure space (on Posix platforms) and uses malloc'ed space instead.