Re: RFC: enable support for smtp/pop/imap by default
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 07:00:30PM +0200, Andreas Krennmair wrote:
> * Will Fiveash <will.fiveash@xxxxxxxxxx> [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