bug#45200: Memory leaks: (garbage-collect) fails to reclaim memory

[Konstantin Kharlamov]

On Sun, 2021-01-24 at 16:20 -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > Sure, they have my report on the problem. In my text I was just trying to
> > convince Stefan that this is not correct behaviour, whereas he was
> > implying otherwise.
> 
> I'm not saying it's necessarily correct behavior.
> What I'm saying is that the expectation that the temporary use of 200MB
> should not affect the memory use later is unrealistic.
> 
> And also that if you (setq gc-cons-threshold most-positive-fixnum)
> then you're simply asking for trouble unless you *really* know what
> you're doing (in which case you'd understand that the above expectation
> is unrealistic).

Why unrealistic? To me the situation is pretty clear: I needed 200M, but I don't
need them anymore, so I want them released. What's unrealistic about that?

If that was your point about that "maybe the 200M of memory will be needed
again", then as I said, yeah, maybe, maybe not — unless Glibc has a prophet
module built-in, it can't know, so it should not behave as if it does.