[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
BASE_PURESIZE
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
BASE_PURESIZE |
Date: |
Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:00:05 +0200 |
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?
- BASE_PURESIZE,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- 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