<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

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