On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 07:00:30PM +0200, Andreas Krennmair wrote: > * Will Fiveash <[email protected]> [2010-04-14 18:40]: > >Two of the several reasons I use mutt are its small memory/cpu footprint > >and its reliability. Adding more code by default runs contrary to those > >aspects of mutt that I appreciate. > > Have you measured memory footprint? I did: > > plain mutt 1.5.20 with --disable-pop --disable-imap --disable-smtp: > > $ size mutt > text data bss dec hex filename > 612370 28440 9664 650474 9ecea mutt > > $ ps -eo rss,vsize,args | grep mutt > 2968 22300 ./mutt > > $ ./mutt -v | grep USE_POP > -USE_POP -USE_IMAP -USE_SMTP > > > plain mutt 1.5.20 with --enable-pop --enable-imap --enable-smtp: > > $ size mutt > text data bss dec hex filename > 700254 29896 9856 740006 b4aa6 mutt > > $ ps -eo rss,vsize,args | grep mutt > 2992 22388 ./mutt > > $ ./mutt -v | grep USE_POP > +USE_POP +USE_IMAP +USE_SMTP > > > Now we have a base for discussion about increased omemory footprint when > pop/imap/smtp are enabled.
True it isn't a big difference but there is some and there also is the issue of reliability that I mentioned earlier. Generally more code path means more to go wrong. I'll stop pressing on this as this isn't that big a deal to me as long as the change doesn't break my mutt build. -- Will Fiveash
