GNU bug report logs - #17846
Increase PURESIZE

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 17846 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 17846 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Davor Rotim <rotim.davor <at> gmail.com>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: Increase PURESIZE
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 10:17:57 +0200

Message #8 received at 17846 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
To: Davor Rotim <rotim.davor <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 17846 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#17846: Increase PURESIZE
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 13:26:18 -0400

Davor Rotim wrote:

> In the current emacs-24 branch value of PURESIZE is too small to build
> Emacs successfully on 32 bit. This issue is already fixed in trunk.

Please provide actual details.
What platform are you on, how big is the overflow?

Message #11 received at 17846 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Davor Rotim <rotim.davor <at> gmail.com>
To: 17846 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#17846
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 20:46:43 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

emacs:0:Pure Lisp storage overflow (approx. 1701883 bytes needed)

This is on GNU/Linux 32-bit (Arch Linux, 3.15.1-1-ARCH i686), gcc 4.9.0
20140604. Sorry for the lack of details in the initial report.

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #14 received at 17846 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
To: Davor Rotim <rotim.davor <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 17846 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#17846:
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 15:20:59 -0400

Davor Rotim wrote:

> emacs:0:Pure Lisp storage overflow (approx. 1701883 bytes needed)

That ties in with what I saw on 32-bit RHEL 6 (I don't normally use
32-bit any more), so I bumped BASE_PURESIZE to 1702000.

I'm worried that this was only now reported...

See also http://debbugs.gnu.org/17255

Perhaps a larger increment should be added, for safety?

Message #17 received at 17846 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Davor Rotim <rotim.davor <at> gmail.com>
To: 17846 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#17846
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 21:31:59 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

I built Emacs with the value of 1800000 (matching the trunk value)
yesterday and had no issues. Currently building with your changes.

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #20 received at 17846 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Davor Rotim <rotim.davor <at> gmail.com>
To: 17846 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#17846
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 22:16:14 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Emacs with BASE_PURESIZE 1702000 builds and runs without problems. This
issue can be closed.

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #23 received at 17846 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
To: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 17846 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Davor Rotim <rotim.davor <at> gmail.com>
Subject: Re: bug#17846:
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 16:19:58 -0400

>> emacs:0:Pure Lisp storage overflow (approx. 1701883 bytes needed)
> That ties in with what I saw on 32-bit RHEL 6 (I don't normally use
> 32-bit any more),

I use 32bit pretty much everywhere, so this part of the normal testing
is somewhat covered.

> so I bumped BASE_PURESIZE to 1702000.

We definitely need more margin since purespace contains elements
whose size depends on things like the length of the name of the
target-directory.

> Perhaps a larger increment should be added, for safety?

I think we can afford a 1% margin.


        Stefan

Message #26 received at 17846 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Cc: 17846 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Davor Rotim <rotim.davor <at> gmail.com>
Subject: Re: bug#17846:
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 16:27:04 -0400

Stefan Monnier wrote:

> I think we can afford a 1% margin.

OK; further bumped to 1720000.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.