[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Reliable after-change-functions (via: Using incremental parsing in E
From: |
Richard Copley |
Subject: |
Re: Reliable after-change-functions (via: Using incremental parsing in Emacs) |
Date: |
Sat, 4 Apr 2020 18:22:34 +0100 |
On Sat, 4 Apr 2020 at 17:46, Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> > Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2020 19:38:18 +0300
> > From: Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden>
> > Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden,
> > address@hidden, address@hidden
> >
> > Is this with xdisp.c in a Git repository or outside of a Git
> > repository?
>
> Also, how many GC's and the time they took did benchmark report? With
> such short timings and running the test only once, the difference GC
> could make might be significant, so if different runs and different
> people here have different numbers of GC, we could be comparing apples
> with oranges.
For my earlier results, I ran the -Og benchmark was in the git
repository (with .git a directory) and the other three in git
worktrees (with .git a regular file). I have repeated my tests for the
-Og case in a git worktree, to match the other three. It didn't make a
significant difference. I haven't tried it outside of git.
Amended results below, including time in GC, for two runs each in
separate instances of "emacs -Q". In all 16 cases there were 8 GCs.
with sit-for, (benchmark 1 '(progn (find-file "src/xdisp.c") (sit-for 0)))
-Og 1.340039s (0.149663s), 1.350613s (0.149954s)
-O2 0.533649s (0.046995s), 0.533949s (0.046714s)
-O1 0.661679s (0.055181s), 0.664470s (0.057050s)
-O0 1.079090s (0.168691s), 1.068118s (0.168451s)
without sit-for, (benchmark 1 '(progn (find-file "src/xdisp.c")))
-Og 1.293845s (0.150200s), 1.305310s (0.149520s)
-O2 0.513139s (0.047117s), 0.511230s (0.047143s)
-O1 0.629743s (0.054738s), 0.629870s (0.056522s)
-O0 1.027754s (0.165569s), 1.031642s (0.168891s)
- Re: Reliable after-change-functions (via: Using incremental parsing in Emacs), (continued)
- 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, 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
- 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 <=
- 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
- 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), Stefan Monnier, 2020/04/04
- Re: Reliable after-change-functions (via: Using incremental parsing in Emacs), Yuan Fu, 2020/04/06
- Re: Reliable after-change-functions (via: Using incremental parsing in Emacs), Jorge Javier Araya Navarro, 2020/04/06