[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#57727: 29.0.50; Optimize tty display updates
From: |
Gerd Möllmann |
Subject: |
bug#57727: 29.0.50; Optimize tty display updates |
Date: |
Tue, 13 Sep 2022 07:53:47 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (darwin) |
Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:
>> 1. Multi-tty make me feel it's natural to make the behavior terminal
>> dependent. At least I don't consider unreasonable for a user to expect
>> being able to tailor the behavior depending on the terminal.
>
> I guess the reason why I think it's over-engineered is that I feel it's
> not something which end-users will want to play with or configure
> per-terminal: we should have a setting that works well everywhere.
I really good default would indeed be a Good Thing. But, on the other
hand, I think it's not likely that we find something that works for
everyone all the time.
> The config vars are only needed to help find that universal setting.
>
> My guess is that the exact setting won't matter very much anyway as long
> as it's big enough to cover most redisplays (since we `fflush` anyway at
> the end of `update_frame`).
>
> For that same reason, I expect that using the OS's default will be
> good enough and it will be difficult to come up with good ways for users
> to test other values and report meaningful information about the
> impact.
As far as the OS default goes (1024 on my system), I don't think I agree
completely. A frame on a full-size terminal window has a width of
ca. 380 columns, which is a bit much for a buffer of 1024.
I fully agree that finding a good default value is hard in every
respect, though. But I actually count that as an argument in favor of
making it an option.
>> 4. From the recent discussion of supporting images on ttys I take away
>> that using a large buffer might help with that because of more data
>> being sent to the terminal.
>
> Could be. Tho I suspect we'd usually want to send a file name rather
> a file's data, but in any case, this is still hypothetical, so I see no
> need to cross this bridge yet.
Agreed.
>>> If someone wants to try out different buffer sizes, I suspect that
>>> recompiling is a good enough solution (or provide a DEFVAR_INT for that
>>> and let the tester(s) call `suspend/resume-tty` by hand).
>> I didn't do that because of multi-tty. But letting users suspend/resume
>> manually is of course an option.
>
> To the extent that I see it as a "debugging" functionality, it seems
> sufficient (another option is to tell people to use an Emacs daemon so
> they can set the var before opening the tty).
Ok, we disagree here.
How can we proceed? What do the maintainers think? I could also just
put in on a branch, for later.
- bug#57727: 29.0.50; Optimize tty display updates, Gerd Möllmann, 2022/09/11
- bug#57727: 29.0.50; Optimize tty display updates, Lars Ingebrigtsen, 2022/09/11
- bug#57727: 29.0.50; Optimize tty display updates, Stefan Monnier, 2022/09/11
- bug#57727: 29.0.50; Optimize tty display updates, Stefan Monnier, 2022/09/12
- bug#57727: 29.0.50; Optimize tty display updates,
Gerd Möllmann <=
- bug#57727: 29.0.50; Optimize tty display updates, Eli Zaretskii, 2022/09/13
- bug#57727: 29.0.50; Optimize tty display updates, Lars Ingebrigtsen, 2022/09/13
- bug#57727: 29.0.50; Optimize tty display updates, Gerd Möllmann, 2022/09/13
- bug#57727: 29.0.50; Optimize tty display updates, Stefan Monnier, 2022/09/13
- bug#57727: 29.0.50; Optimize tty display updates, Gerd Möllmann, 2022/09/13
bug#57727: 29.0.50; Optimize tty display updates, Gerd Möllmann, 2022/09/17
bug#57727: 29.0.50; Optimize tty display updates, Basil L. Contovounesios, 2022/09/17