[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: |
Fri, 28 Apr 2006 16:03:11 +0300 |
> Cc: address@hidden
> From: Ken Raeburn <address@hidden>
> Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 03:07:35 -0400
>
> > 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.
Yes, if we find no other explanation, comparing .elc files would be
the way to go.
> 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.
No need for binary search, I think: since we are debugging pure
storage use, it's better to put a breakpoint on the functions that
allocate space off pure[], and then xbacktrace will show what
expression is being evaluated, while the C code will show how much
pure space is being allocated.
> If people want to expend that much effort on it, of course.
275KB of memory sounds like a good reason to me, but that's me.
- 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, 2006/04/28
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again),
Eli Zaretskii <=
- 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
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Andreas Schwab, 2006/04/29