[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: PURESIZE increased (again)
From: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: PURESIZE increased (again) |
Date: |
Sat, 22 Apr 2006 18:33:00 -0400 |
> 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? Is
it worth the time to debug? [On a modern system.]
If the numbers vary a little, that's not important in itself.
But if they are very different, that suggests something else is wrong.
It's worth tracking down the root cause, just to see if it has
other consequences more important than variation in puresize.
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), (continued)
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Robert J. Chassell, 2006/04/23
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Richard Stallman, 2006/04/23
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Eli Zaretskii, 2006/04/23
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Eli Zaretskii, 2006/04/23
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Dan Nicolaescu, 2006/04/23
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Eli Zaretskii, 2006/04/23
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Dan Nicolaescu, 2006/04/23
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Eli Zaretskii, 2006/04/23
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Richard Stallman, 2006/04/24
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Luc Teirlinck, 2006/04/22
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again),
Richard Stallman <=
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Luc Teirlinck, 2006/04/22
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Eli Zaretskii, 2006/04/22
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Richard Stallman, 2006/04/23
- Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Romain Francoise, 2006/04/16
Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Eli Zaretskii, 2006/04/16
Re: PURESIZE increased (again), Bill Wohler, 2006/04/18