From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: Andrea Corallo Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Pure space and overflow question Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 13:54:42 +0000 Message-ID: References: <83y2sxjam7.fsf@gnu.org> <83blpsjelc.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="30276"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Feb 21 14:55:34 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1j58mD-0007m2-TF for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 14:55:33 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:58358 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1j58mC-0004Z4-UJ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 08:55:32 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:38057) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1j58lU-0003T4-GW for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 08:54:49 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1j58lT-0001zv-IH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 08:54:48 -0500 Original-Received: from mx.sdf.org ([205.166.94.20]:58243) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1j58lQ-0001xz-BO; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 08:54:44 -0500 Original-Received: from sdf.org (ma.sdf.org [205.166.94.33]) by mx.sdf.org (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPS id 01LDsgQ5000121 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256 bits) verified NO); Fri, 21 Feb 2020 13:54:42 GMT Original-Received: (from akrl@localhost) by sdf.org (8.15.2/8.12.8/Submit) id 01LDsgNY019233; Fri, 21 Feb 2020 13:54:42 GMT In-Reply-To: <83blpsjelc.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Fri, 21 Feb 2020 14:43:11 +0200") X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 205.166.94.20 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:245011 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: > IMO, SYSTEM_PURESIZE_EXTRA is for specific _platforms_. So if a > specific configuration on some platform needs more pure space, but > other configurations on the same platform do not, that specific > configuration should conditionally enlarge BASE_PURESIZE. Okay > That said, why does your configuration require more pure space than > any other on that same platform? Effectively in comp.c are allocate object that goes into pure space and all the code is under #ifdef HAVE_NATIVE_COMP. Also the constant objects present in every compilation unit can have a small overhead respect to the elc one. This is because they include the data used by the 'top_level_run' function. We could split this but personally I'm not sure is worth to complexify the design to save some KBs of configuration specific pure space. Thanks Andrea -- akrl@sdf.org