[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Erik van der Poel) wrote:
>Simon Montagu wrote:
>>
>> I didn't find any other static tables, but the one above was included
>> unnecessarily in a lot of different places
>
>OK.
>
>> All files not in the above list are now exactly the same size in Bidi
>> and non-Bidi builds.
>
>That's exactly what I wanted to hear!
>
>Now, another important number would be the run-time memory use. I would
>expect the run-time footprint to increase somewhat when a bidi document
>is encountered and processed, but I would hope that it doesn't increase
>much when a non-bidi document is processed.
>
>Have you taken a look at the mozilla.porkjockeys newsgroup? There have
>been a lot of messages recently about memory use. It would be a good
>idea to use some of those methods for your measurements. Or perhaps you
>have some other ideas, such as using some Windows tools, or whatever.
>
>The speed of a non-bidi document is also important to measure.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Erik
>
(crossposting to n.p.m.porkjockeys)
The messages I read on the porkjockeys newsgroup confirm the
impression I was getting from my own tests: footprint is very variable
from one test to another. I would need to run lots of tests to get a
statistically significant sample, but my impression so far is that the
increase in footprint usage when loading a non-bidi document with a
bidi build is not larger than the variations between one load and
another with the same build.
Simon
