[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Building Emacs overflowed pure space
From: |
Luc Teirlinck |
Subject: |
Re: Building Emacs overflowed pure space |
Date: |
Tue, 18 Jul 2006 17:01:41 -0500 (CDT) |
Eli Zaretskii wrote:
No, this cannot explain the differences I was trying to investigate,
because I made a point, as part of my testing, of building Emacs both
with and without bootstrap. I got the same numbers in both cases.
On the other hand, I guess that you read the following two messages in
which two people reported seeing a difference in pure-bytes-used
depending on the way they compiled Emacs?
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 20:01:25 +0900
From: YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu <address@hidden>
Organization: Faculty of Science, Chiba University
Cc: address@hidden
Sender: address@hidden
> The question is not what caused the recent addition to the pure
> space, the question is why some people see overflow, while others
> don't, on the same platform.
Maybe I'm not completely following the related threads, but at least
one can see such a difference as follows:
$ make bootstrap
-> 1210372 pure bytes used
$ cd lisp
$ make bootstrap-clean
$ make compile EMACS=../src/emacs
$ cd ..
$ make clean
$ make
-> 1209036 pure bytes used
(on Mac OS X 10.4.7, X11)
I observed that .elc's compiled by bootstrap-emacs have `dolist'
expanded by cl.el, whereas those compiled by emacs have
subr.el-version. Actually, bootstrap-emacs loads cl.el via preloaded
.el files that contain (eval-when-compile (require 'cl)), where
`eval-when-compile' just behaves like `progn'.
YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu
address@hidden
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
From: Evil Boris <address@hidden>
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 07:40:47 -0400
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host:
207-38-193-43.c3-0.wsd-ubr1.qens-wsd.ny.cable.rcn.com
Cancel-Lock: sha1:oxVdsPt4RABMvFYyjLvvrf0IEG0=
Sender: address@hidden
For what it's worth, I have been using the following recipe (taken
from INSTALL.CVS, is it still valid advice?) for updating Emacs. After
cvs update
I do:
% gmake
% cd lisp
% gmake recompile EMACS=../src/emacs
% cd ..
% gmake
I have noticed that the amount of pure storage needed in the initial
call to gmake is different from the one needed after recompile.
(sparc-sun-solaris2.7, X toolkit). Is this to be expected?
Specifically, the last build I tried (Jul 4) required 1210824 pure
bytes in second iteration and 1208688 in the first (so the latest
increase does not suffice).
Cheers,
--Boris
- Re: Building Emacs overflowed pure space, (continued)
- Re: Building Emacs overflowed pure space, Stefan Monnier, 2006/07/22
- Re: Building Emacs overflowed pure space, YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu, 2006/07/24
- Re: Building Emacs overflowed pure space, Richard Stallman, 2006/07/25
- Re: Building Emacs overflowed pure space, YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu, 2006/07/25
- Re: Building Emacs overflowed pure space, David Kastrup, 2006/07/25
- Re: Building Emacs overflowed pure space, Andreas Schwab, 2006/07/25
- Re: Building Emacs overflowed pure space, David Kastrup, 2006/07/25
- Message not available
- Re: Building Emacs overflowed pure space, Andreas Schwab, 2006/07/25
- Re: Building Emacs overflowed pure space, David Kastrup, 2006/07/25
- Re: Building Emacs overflowed pure space, Richard Stallman, 2006/07/23
- Re: Building Emacs overflowed pure space,
Luc Teirlinck <=
- Re: Building Emacs overflowed pure space, Chong Yidong, 2006/07/18
- Re: Building Emacs overflowed pure space, Luc Teirlinck, 2006/07/18
- Re: Building Emacs overflowed pure space, Luc Teirlinck, 2006/07/18
- Re: Building Emacs overflowed pure space, Luc Teirlinck, 2006/07/18
- Re: Building Emacs overflowed pure space, Eli Zaretskii, 2006/07/18
- Re: Building Emacs overflowed pure space, Luc Teirlinck, 2006/07/18
- Re: Building Emacs overflowed pure space, Richard Stallman, 2006/07/19
- Re: Building Emacs overflowed pure space, YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu, 2006/07/19
- Re: Building Emacs overflowed pure space, YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu, 2006/07/19
- Re: Building Emacs overflowed pure space, Stefan Monnier, 2006/07/19