On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 11:39:13 +0100
Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)xemacs.org> wrote:
junq <junq(a)ihubbell.com> writes:
> Running without the init.el seems to stop the leakage. It's
> possible that it is a problem (from what I've learned so far) from
> the XAE that gets loaded via init.el XAE == Xml Authoring
> Environment
>
> xae-1.0beta8
>
http://xae.sunsite.dk/xae-beta.tar.gz
What makes you think that XAE is a problem? Does the leak fail to
occur if and only if you comment out the loading of XAE?
xemacs -q (which bypasses loading of init.el and init.el is where XAE is
loaded) showed no memory growth, but I think that assertion has been proved
wrong after running those tests below. Right?
It would be really strange if XAE caused the leak without having an
itimer that would actually run. However, you never know what hooks it
might have installed that contain leaks. It could also be a genuine
XEmacs bug triggered by the XAE code, but I doubt it without any
evidence.
>> 1. Run (while t (cperl-get-help-defer)) and monitor the XEmacs process
>> for signs of leakage. If you don't detect leaking in several
>> minutes, there is probably no leak in that area.
>
> Chewed on the cpu well enough but I observed no memory leak.
>
>>
>> 2. Run (run-with-idle-timer .1 t (lambda () nil)) and leave XEmacs for
>> the night. See if you get the leaks.
>
> This is running but it looks inocuous so far.
Then cperl-mode is probably not to blame.
This ran and I don't see any memory growth, in fact RSS dropped 8 bytes.
There were still the ~3% CPU spikes here.
So where does this leave us? A summary chart is attached, it is a
busy chart but it is easier to see this way then to reiterate what
we have tried to now.