From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <zsh-workers-return-30823-mason-zsh=primenet.com.au@zsh.org>
Received: (qmail 29928 invoked by alias); 25 Nov 2012 08:22:20 -0000
Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes
List-Id: Zsh Workers List <zsh-workers.zsh.org>
List-Post: <mailto:zsh-workers@zsh.org>
List-Help: <mailto:zsh-workers-help@zsh.org>
X-Seq: 30823
Received: (qmail 26258 invoked from network); 25 Nov 2012 08:22:08 -0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on f.primenet.com.au
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI
	autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
Received-SPF: none (ns1.primenet.com.au: domain at linux.vnet.ibm.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 16:11:45 +0800
From: Han Pingtian <hanpt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: zsh-workers@zsh.org
Subject: Re: argv subscript range uses too many memory
Message-ID: <20121125081145.GC2576@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20121108084001.GA7594@localhost.localdomain>
 <20121108100226.575b0788@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri>
 <20121110105811.GA7136@localhost.localdomain>
 <121110065709.ZM4781@torch.brasslantern.com>
 <20121120130457.GD2500@localhost.localdomain>
 <121120090300.ZM5552@torch.brasslantern.com>
 <121120094443.ZM5584@torch.brasslantern.com>
 <121120102415.ZM5635@torch.brasslantern.com>
 <20121122092847.GA2576@localhost.localdomain>
 <121122102927.ZM8049@torch.brasslantern.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <121122102927.ZM8049@torch.brasslantern.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER
x-cbid: 12112508-8974-0000-0000-000011A2D33C

On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 10:29:27AM -0800, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> On Nov 22,  5:28pm, Han Pingtian wrote:
> }
> } I have tried this patch. Looks like with this patch on 5.0, [loops]
> } will run very slow, but the memory problem is solved at the
> } sametime.
> 
> If you would not mind, try removing both that patch and the one you
> previously removed for 29175, but increase HEAPSIZE to
> 
> #define HEAPSIZE (163840 - H_ISIZE)
> 
> and see if that makes any noticeable difference in the "run very slow"
> condition?

I have tried this. It works just fine. Both problems lools like has been
fixed. Do you think it is the right solution?

Thanks.