[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: BASE_PURESIZE
From: |
Dan Nicolaescu |
Subject: |
Re: BASE_PURESIZE |
Date: |
Fri, 23 Oct 2009 04:58:30 -0700 (PDT) |
Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
> Isn't the current definition of BASE_PURESIZE too large?
>
> #define BASE_PURESIZE (1430000 + SYSTEM_PURESIZE_EXTRA +
SITELOAD_PURESIZE_EXTRA)
>
> I looked at the values of pure_size vs pure_bytes_used in several
> builds on several platforms, and I see that we are wasting at least
> 130KB:
>
> MS-Windows:
> (gdb) p pure_size
> $1 = 1480000
> (gdb) p pure_bytes_used
> $2 = 1357888
>
> 64-bit GNU/Linux (--without-x):
> (gdb) p pure_size
> $1 = 2383333
> (gdb) p pure_bytes_used
> $2 = 2015813
>
> 64-bit GNU/Linux (with X):
> (gdb) p pure_size
> $1 = 2383333
> (gdb) p pure_bytes_used
> $2 = 2193049
>
> MS-DOS:
> (gdb) p pure_size
> $1 = 1440000
> (gdb) p pure_bytes_used
> $2 = 1275442
>
> GNU/Linux without-X is the extreme example: it wastes 370KB.
>
> How about reducing the 1430000 number above?
I have a few pending changes that will make the sizes needed just under
that, no need to fiddle with it all the time.
- Re: BASE_PURESIZE, (continued)
- Re: BASE_PURESIZE, Andreas Schwab, 2009/10/23
- Re: BASE_PURESIZE, Eli Zaretskii, 2009/10/24
- Re: BASE_PURESIZE, Andreas Schwab, 2009/10/24
- Re: BASE_PURESIZE, Eli Zaretskii, 2009/10/24
- Re: BASE_PURESIZE, Dan Nicolaescu, 2009/10/24
- Re: BASE_PURESIZE, Stefan Monnier, 2009/10/24
- Re: BASE_PURESIZE, Dan Nicolaescu, 2009/10/25
- defcustom standard-value (was: Re: BASE_PURESIZE), Dan Nicolaescu, 2009/10/29
- Re: BASE_PURESIZE, Chong Yidong, 2009/10/24
- Re: BASE_PURESIZE, Dan Nicolaescu, 2009/10/24
Re: BASE_PURESIZE,
Dan Nicolaescu <=
Re: BASE_PURESIZE, Juanma Barranquero, 2009/10/23