Re: XEmacs has just (more than) doubled in size
- First Post
- Replies
- Stats
-
Go to
- ----- 2024 -----
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2023 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2022 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2021 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2020 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2019 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2018 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2017 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2016 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2015 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2014 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2013 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2012 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2011 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2010 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2009 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2008 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2007 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2006 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2005 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2004 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2003 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2002 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2001 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 2000 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 1999 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
- February
- January
- ----- 1998 -----
- December
- November
- October
- September
- August
- July
- June
- May
- April
- March
Darryl Okahata <darrylo(a)sr.hp.com> writes in xemacs-beta(a)xemacs.org:
Andy Piper <andy(a)xemacs.org> wrote:
> At 05:05 PM 8/18/99 +0900, SL Baur wrote:
> >Comparative output from size is:
> >$ size src/xemacs*
> > text data bss dec hex filename
> >2384350 3030336 0 5414686 529f1e src/xemacs
> >2063120 3035984 0 5099104 4dce60 src/xemacs.RUNNING
>
> These numbers don't add up do they? I blame gcc :)
As these sizes are comparable, but the file sizes aren't,
I'd
suspect the compiler/linker for bloating the debugging info (which
generally aren't symbols, and aren't part of the nm output).
I now suspect dumping. I hate dumping, I hate it, I hate it, I hate
it, I hate it. Why must we do something so stupid?
Perhaps something is adding duplicate debugging info. I've seen
this happen in a non-gcc compiler, with no apparent symptoms other
than a bloated file size; the executable worked, debuggers worked,
but the file size was bloated.
Compare:
$ ll src/xemacs*
-rwxrwxrwx 1 steve 23688 8691296 Aug 19 10:33 src/xemacs
-rwxrwxrwx 1 steve 23688 18546704 Aug 18 14:51 src/xemacs.BLOATED
-rwxrwxrwx 1 steve 23688 8690616 Aug 16 15:01 src/xemacs.RUNNING
These are all cvs snapshots from minutes before the timestamp. The
difference between the Aug 18 binary and the Aug 19 binary is that I
just ran `cvs update; ./config.status --recheck; make clean; make' a
few minutes ago.
What does this message mean? And why did I get an XEmacs anyway?
Dumping under the name xemacs
unexec(): dldump(/usr/local/devel/miho-optimized/src/xemacs): ld.so.1: ./temacs: fatal:
/usr/local/devel/miho-optimized/src/xemacs: unknown dynamic entry: 1879048176
Darryl Okahata
Thursday, 19 August
Thu, 19 Aug
3:30 a.m.
New subject: XEmacs has just (more than) doubled in size
SL Baur <steve(a)xemacs.org> wrote:
What does this message mean? And why did I get an XEmacs anyway?
Dumping under the name xemacs
unexec(): dldump(/usr/local/devel/miho-optimized/src/xemacs): ld.so.1: ./tema
cs: fatal: /usr/local/devel/miho-optimized/src/xemacs: unknown dynamic entry:
1879048176
Dunno. Is XEmacs playing with argv[0]?
It's a longshot, but you might want to try editing src/unexsol2-6.c
(I assume you're using Solaris 2.6) and change line 33 from:
if (dldump (0, new_name, RTLD_MEMORY) != 0)
to:
if (dldump (old_name, new_name, RTLD_MEMORY) != 0)
--
Darryl Okahata
darrylo(a)sr.hp.com
DISCLAIMER: this message is the author's personal opinion and does not
constitute the support, opinion, or policy of Hewlett-Packard, or of the
little green men that have been following him all day.
Robert Pluim
Thursday, 19 August
Thu, 19 Aug
9:28 a.m.
New subject: XEmacs has just (more than) doubled in size
SL Baur writes:
I now suspect dumping. I hate dumping, I hate it, I hate it, I hate
it, I hate it. Why must we do something so stupid?
Here's a (possibly insane) suggestion: rather than dumping, why don't
we compile the lisp files to C? We could then make select portions
dynamically loadable, and remove all that unportable dumping code.
Does this sound feasible, or have I been getting too little sleep
lately?
Robert
--
The above are my opinions,
and my opinions only.
Marcus Thiessel
Thursday, 19 August
Thu, 19 Aug
8:04 a.m.
New subject: XEmacs has just (more than) doubled in size
SL Baur writes:
I now suspect dumping. I hate dumping, I hate it, I hate it, I hate
it, I hate it. Why must we do something so stupid?
The question is what are the alternatives? Are there any at all?
--Marcus
9228
days inactive
9228
days old
3 comments
4 participants
tags (0)
participants (4)
-
Darryl Okahata -
Marcus Thiessel -
Robert Pluim -
SL Baur