[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: PURESIZE increased (again)
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: PURESIZE increased (again) |
Date: |
Sun, 16 Apr 2006 19:59:15 +0300 |
> From: Andreas Schwab <address@hidden>
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden>, address@hidden
> Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 14:13:56 +0200
>
> Romain Francoise <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
> >
> >> Romain, could you please tell why you increased BASE_PURESIZE by
> >> another 10,000?
> >
> > Because I built Emacs and there wasn't enough pure space available...
> > The log indicated 1200696 bytes used,
>
> Where do you see that?
I second the question. How was that build configured, for what
variant of GNU/Linux, and which CPU?
> I see only 1198536 bytes (1877040 on 64bit).
And I see 1102088 in a GNU/Linux build without X. I doubt that adding
X could bump it by 100K bytes.
I also doubt very much that the Windows build is so different from a
32-build on GNU/Linux.
So your results, Romain, look quite strange. I think we need to
understand them before we decide to increase PURESIZE.
- PURESIZE increased (again), Eli Zaretskii, 2006/04/16
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Eli Zaretskii, 2006/04/16
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Romain Francoise, 2006/04/16
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Andreas Schwab, 2006/04/16
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again),
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Reiner Steib, 2006/04/20
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Eli Zaretskii, 2006/04/20
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Reiner Steib, 2006/04/20
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Stefan Monnier, 2006/04/20
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Eli Zaretskii, 2006/04/21
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Eli Zaretskii, 2006/04/21
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Eli Zaretskii, 2006/04/21
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Reiner Steib, 2006/04/26
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Eli Zaretskii, 2006/04/27
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), David Kastrup, 2006/04/27