[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Correct byte compiler error/warning positions. The solution!
From: |
Alan Mackenzie |
Subject: |
Re: Correct byte compiler error/warning positions. The solution! |
Date: |
Mon, 29 Nov 2021 19:39:05 +0000 |
Hello, Eli.
On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 14:45:01 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2021 11:50:19 +0000
> > From: Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de>
> > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> > Anyhow, I've committed the current state in the new branch
> > scratch/correct-warning-pos. It should build and run OK, although I
> > haven't tried it out with native compilation, yet. It is marginally
> > slower than master. Maybe we can merge it into master some time for
> > Emacs 29.
> Please show the benchmark results, so we could know how slower is
> this.
The source for the benchmarking is:
(defun time-scroll-b (&optional arg) ; For use in `benchmark-run'.
(condition-case nil
(while t
(if arg (scroll-down) (scroll-up))
(sit-for 0))
(error nil)))
I ran (benchmark-run (time-scroll-b)) five times on both versions of
Emacs, using the file src/xdisp.c from the version being tested, and
running on a Linux tty. Between each run I did M-<, SPACE, pause ~5
seconds, C-_.
On the master branch I got the following timings:
* - 1: (20.146470262 435 7.018855274999999)
* - 2: (20.6936481 307 6.8447708129999985)
* - 3: (20.748953179999997 303 6.931802685000001)
* - 4: (20.754181744 303 6.932338166000001)
* - 5: (20.746469523000002 304 6.927925281999997)
On the scratch/correct-warning-pos branch, I got these:
* - 1: (20.200789011 446 7.2819411899999995)
* - 2: (20.837616185999998 308 6.967083439000001)
* - 3: (20.93961052 305 7.074547531)
* - 4: (20.931170864 305 7.0736086979999975)
* - 5: (20.853407755 304 7.029190317999998)
So, on this test the new branch appears to be around 1%, perhaps a
little less, slower than the master branch.
It is notable that the first run in each version is different from the
others, both in being a little faster, and having far more
garbage-collections. I don't know why this is. Maybe Emacs could be
marginally sped up by garbage collecting more frequently, but that's
speculation.
> Thanks.
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
- Correct byte compiler error/warning positions. The solution!, Alan Mackenzie, 2021/11/26
- Re: Correct byte compiler error/warning positions. The solution!, Eli Zaretskii, 2021/11/27
- Re: Correct byte compiler error/warning positions. The solution!, Alan Mackenzie, 2021/11/27
- Re: Correct byte compiler error/warning positions. The solution!, Eli Zaretskii, 2021/11/27
- Re: Correct byte compiler error/warning positions. The solution!, Alan Mackenzie, 2021/11/27
- Re: Correct byte compiler error/warning positions. The solution!, Eli Zaretskii, 2021/11/27
- Re: Correct byte compiler error/warning positions. The solution!, Alan Mackenzie, 2021/11/27
- Re: Correct byte compiler error/warning positions. The solution!, Eli Zaretskii, 2021/11/28
- Re: Correct byte compiler error/warning positions. The solution!, Alan Mackenzie, 2021/11/29
- Re: Correct byte compiler error/warning positions. The solution!, Eli Zaretskii, 2021/11/29
- Re: Correct byte compiler error/warning positions. The solution!,
Alan Mackenzie <=
- Re: Correct byte compiler error/warning positions. The solution!, Robert Pluim, 2021/11/29
- Re: Correct byte compiler error/warning positions. The solution!, Alan Mackenzie, 2021/11/29
- Re: Correct byte compiler error/warning positions. The solution!, Robert Pluim, 2021/11/30
- Re: Correct byte compiler error/warning positions. The solution!, Andrea Corallo, 2021/11/28