Re: PURESIZE increased (again)

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 20:35:05 +0900
> From: "Miles Bader" <address@hidden>
> Cc: "Luc Teirlinck" <address@hidden>, address@hidden, 
>       address@hidden, address@hidden
> 
> On 4/22/06, Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> 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.