Re: Profiling font-lock in xemacs

[Ben Wing]

> From: Richard Stallman <address@hidden>
> Reply-To: address@hidden
> To: address@hidden
> CC: monnier+gnu/address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden,   
> address@hidden, address@hidden
> Subject: Re: Profiling font-lock in xemacs
> Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 02:41:06 -0600 (MDT)
>
> It would be better not to have a delay of even .25 second in handling
> C-g.  It ought to respond crisply.

of course, this is only on systems without SIGIO, where we have no choice 
but to implement such a thing.

> If the delay were made smaller, eventually it would be insignificant.
> I don't know at what point that is reached.

.25 second is pretty small.  the smaller you go, of course, the more cpu 
time you potentially use up.


> Currently on some systems C-g handling can involve a delay of up to 1
> second, the wait for "polling for input".  That's because when it was
> implemented there was no better facility to use than `alarm'.
> Nowadays I gather there is one; we should change the polling interval
> to something shorter than a second.

setitimer() on unix systems.





_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com