Re: PURESIZE increased (again)

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Cc: address@hidden,  address@hidden
> From: Stefan Monnier <address@hidden>
> Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 17:37:59 -0400
> 
> AFAIK these low numbers have no meaning: if the pure size overflows, the
> number printed is always some ridiculously low number, unrelated to the
> actual size of the pure space

Yes, you are right: the backup strategy zeroes out pure_bytes_used, so
what gets printed is just the portion that didn't fit into pure[].