[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Reliable after-change-functions (via: Using incremental parsing in E
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: Reliable after-change-functions (via: Using incremental parsing in Emacs) |
Date: |
Sat, 04 Apr 2020 16:02:05 +0300 |
> Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2020 12:36:13 +0000
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden>, address@hidden, address@hidden,
> address@hidden, address@hidden
> From: Alan Mackenzie <address@hidden>
>
> > > (time-it (find-file "..../src/xdisp.c") (sit-for 0))
>
> > It might be valuable if you evaluated exactly the same form I did. And
> > made sure that the buffer is not visited in advance. And did that in an
> > 'emacs -Q' session.
>
> Fair point:
>
> M-: (benchmark 1 '(progn (find-file "src/xdisp.c")))
>
> "Elapsed time: 1.249904s (0.165570s in 7 GCs)"
>
> , in a build with the CLAGS and gtk toolkit like you said. That's in
> agreement with your timing, given my slightly slower machine.
I don't believe these results. It's night impossible for a -O2
optimized program to be 5 times faster than a -Og optimized. And
benchmark.el doesn't seem to be so different from time-it, modulo the
function call. Moreover, Alan's method does time redisplay, whereas
Dmitry's method does not.
So there's some other factor at work here that explains the
difference.
> I think it does explain the difference. I repeated my previous timing,
> which was 0.18s on an optimised build, and it came out at 1.16s. That's
> a factor of 6 different. CFLAGS='-Og -g3' is a slow build.
It cannot be that slow. Especially since some I/O is involved, and
you also measure redisplay. More detailed data would be necessary to
explain the difference.
- Re: Reliable after-change-functions (via: Using incremental parsing in Emacs), (continued)
- Re: Reliable after-change-functions (via: Using incremental parsing in Emacs), Alan Mackenzie, 2020/04/04
- Re: Reliable after-change-functions (via: Using incremental parsing in Emacs), Eli Zaretskii, 2020/04/04
- Re: Reliable after-change-functions (via: Using incremental parsing in Emacs), Andrea Corallo, 2020/04/04
- Re: Reliable after-change-functions (via: Using incremental parsing in Emacs), Eli Zaretskii, 2020/04/04
- Re: Reliable after-change-functions (via: Using incremental parsing in Emacs), Andrea Corallo, 2020/04/04
- Re: Reliable after-change-functions (via: Using incremental parsing in Emacs), Richard Copley, 2020/04/04
- Re: Reliable after-change-functions (via: Using incremental parsing in Emacs), Eli Zaretskii, 2020/04/04
- Re: Reliable after-change-functions (via: Using incremental parsing in Emacs), Dmitry Gutov, 2020/04/04
- Re: Reliable after-change-functions (via: Using incremental parsing in Emacs), Alan Mackenzie, 2020/04/04
- Re: Reliable after-change-functions (via: Using incremental parsing in Emacs), Dmitry Gutov, 2020/04/04
- Re: Reliable after-change-functions (via: Using incremental parsing in Emacs),
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: Reliable after-change-functions (via: Using incremental parsing in Emacs), Dmitry Gutov, 2020/04/04
- Re: Reliable after-change-functions (via: Using incremental parsing in Emacs), Eli Zaretskii, 2020/04/04
- Re: Reliable after-change-functions (via: Using incremental parsing in Emacs), Eli Zaretskii, 2020/04/04
- Re: Reliable after-change-functions (via: Using incremental parsing in Emacs), Richard Copley, 2020/04/04
- Re: Reliable after-change-functions (via: Using incremental parsing in Emacs), Eli Zaretskii, 2020/04/04
- Re: Reliable after-change-functions (via: Using incremental parsing in Emacs), Andrea Corallo, 2020/04/04
- Re: Reliable after-change-functions (via: Using incremental parsing in Emacs), Richard Copley, 2020/04/04
- Re: Reliable after-change-functions (via: Using incremental parsing in Emacs), Andrea Corallo, 2020/04/04
- Re: Reliable after-change-functions (via: Using incremental parsing in Emacs), Dmitry Gutov, 2020/04/04
- Re: Reliable after-change-functions (via: Using incremental parsing in Emacs), Eli Zaretskii, 2020/04/04