[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: PURESIZE increased (again)
From: |
Ken Raeburn |
Subject: |
Re: PURESIZE increased (again) |
Date: |
Fri, 28 Apr 2006 03:07:35 -0400 |
On Apr 28, 2006, at 01:29, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
From: Ken Raeburn <address@hidden>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 18:24:55 -0400
The byte and object counts *should* be the same (uh, unless the
pathnames to the elc files are stored somewhere but el file pathnames
are not).
(Actually, I should've said the increases in the byte and object
counts, when each .elc file is loaded.)
Even if this is true (which I don't think it is), how can a stored
name explain 20KB of difference?
It wouldn't, but if it does happen (and I don't think it does,
either, but I don't recall for sure) it would be a reason for the
numbers not to be *exactly* the same, so then a very small
discrepancy wouldn't be a big problem. But like you say, I don't
think it happens.
It might also be useful to check that the .elc files you two are
getting (you've both done "make bootstrap", right?) are actually
similar.
That's the point: how _could_ they be different?
Barring the obvious, like local hacks affecting the byte-code
optimizer, or some local bug causing character encoding conversions
to be applied to byte-code strings, I have no idea. But since I have
no other good idea how the 20K difference came up loading a .elc
file, I figure breaking the problem down might help. For example:
First, confirm that some file foo.elc to be loaded is (functionally)
the same, and that it consume different amounts of storage, on the
two systems. Then split it apart (binary search, one S-expression at
a time, whatever) and see if there's some particular kind of
expression in the .elc file that consumes different amounts of
storage on the two systems. If we know what it is, perhaps we can
figure out why it's handled differently. But if the files are
different, then the problem isn't differing storage consumed by
(identical) loaded objects, and we go off in a very different
direction....
If people want to expend that much effort on it, of course.
Ken
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), (continued)
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Luc Teirlinck, 2006/04/27
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Ken Raeburn, 2006/04/27
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), David Kastrup, 2006/04/27
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Ken Raeburn, 2006/04/27
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Eli Zaretskii, 2006/04/28
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Eli Zaretskii, 2006/04/28
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), David Kastrup, 2006/04/28
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again),
Ken Raeburn <=
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Eli Zaretskii, 2006/04/28
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Reiner Steib, 2006/04/27
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Eli Zaretskii, 2006/04/28
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Reiner Steib, 2006/04/28
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Andreas Schwab, 2006/04/28
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Eli Zaretskii, 2006/04/28
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Reiner Steib, 2006/04/28
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Eli Zaretskii, 2006/04/29
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Stefan Monnier, 2006/04/29
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Eli Zaretskii, 2006/04/29