[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: BASE_PURESIZE
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: BASE_PURESIZE |
Date: |
Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:35:49 +0200 |
> From: Andreas Schwab <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden
> Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:24:26 +0200
>
> Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
>
> >> Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
> >>
> >> > Isn't the current definition of BASE_PURESIZE too large?
> >>
> >> Fits quite well here (pure_size - pure_bytes_used == 79770).
> >
> > What configuration is that?
>
> powerpc-suse-linux
That's strange. Is that a 64-bit system? If so, do you have any
ideas why two different GNU/Linux systems, one on x86_64, the other
yours, have such significantly different pure space usage sizes?
- BASE_PURESIZE, Eli Zaretskii, 2009/10/23
- 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