Re: PURESIZE increased (again)

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 20:59:51 -0500 (CDT)
> From: Luc Teirlinck <address@hidden>
> CC: address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden,
>         address@hidden
> 
> Eli Zaretskii wrote"
> 
>    > Why?  What's the _downside_ of adding a fudge factor to puresize?
> 
>    It makes the memory footprint larger.
> 
> By a completely negligible percentage (a fraction of a percent),
> obviously not enough to worry about or waste any time on trying to
> reduce it further.

I measure memory footprint in bytes, not in percents.  10KB is not
negligible, IMHO, even if taken in isolation.

> Comparing my present pure-bytes-used of 1200904 with the 1036280 from
> an old CVS version of 2005-02-07, suggests that pure-bytes-used is
> currently growing faster than 13 percent a year

Again, this is 170KB growth, certainly not a negligible amount of
memory.