Robert Roessler wrote:
Neil Hodgson wrote:
Robert Roessler:
[snip]
BUT an 83 KB increase on a 458 KB app???
Bytes aren't as precious as they used to be, especially on disk
size. This may or may not translate into a changed in-memory size
although since its a proportional change rather than just an addition,
it probably does go into memory. Safety is one of the better reasons
for allowing some expansion but there may also be some more default
inlining of functions or loop unrolling which can increase bulk in
pursuit of speed.
So vs 2005 is what you use for builds of Scintilla/SciTE, and your
results are consistent with mine? It is tempting to take the position
that SciTE's bloat under the new order of things is no worse than any
other app...
... BUT bloat, especially of this magnitude, still can cause major
performance grief - because of extra paging. ONE [formerly unneeded]
pagein can sure wipe out a lot of "gain" from some unrolled loops (or
whatever is causing an overall [non-library] increase in size)... :(
Why don't we try it and see if there is any appreciable slowdown
before making comments based on CompSci theory.
Surely one should not be so gung-ho concerned about a few more
page faults? Would you see any significant effect while using the
application, or would the difference only turn up in an artificial
benchmark? Some actual testing would be useful here. Is your
system's memory utilization very high? If it is, wouldn't all
applications be affected as well, not just SciTE? If one has
enough memory, I don't think the issue of an application's code
pages trashing would arise.
From an engineering perspective, there is really no issue worth
arguing about here. For a user who has space- or
performance-critical needs, the user can always compile a custom
executable.
--
Cheers,
Kein-Hong Man (esq.)
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
_______________________________________________
Scite-interest mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.lyra.org/mailman/listinfo/scite-interest
