From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#18752: 24.3.94; Why is Cygwin Emacs 2x quicker than Windows Emacs? Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2014 20:46:07 +0300 Message-ID: <8338ale0f4.fsf@gnu.org> References: <86h9z2rb42.fsf@example.com> <83siim1z6h.fsf@gnu.org> <86iojimmjg.fsf@example.com> <83wq7ydjc7.fsf@gnu.org> <86zjctlvkv.fsf@example.com> <838ukde4ik.fsf@gnu.org> <5442A4F4.1000201@cornell.edu> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1413654746 30405 80.91.229.3 (18 Oct 2014 17:52:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2014 17:52:26 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 18752@debbugs.gnu.org, fni-news@pirilampo.org To: Ken Brown Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Oct 18 19:52:19 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XfYAq-0003Ks-Rt for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 19:52:16 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37349 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XfYAq-0000as-Cb for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 13:52:16 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60787) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XfYAi-0000Zs-Kk for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 13:52:13 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XfYAd-0003Mo-P3 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 13:52:08 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:34916) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XfYAd-0003Mf-LU for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 13:52:03 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XfYAc-0000cX-W2 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 13:52:03 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2014 17:52:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 18752 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 18752-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B18752.14136546932346 (code B ref 18752); Sat, 18 Oct 2014 17:52:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 18752) by debbugs.gnu.org; 18 Oct 2014 17:51:33 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55247 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XfYA7-0000bl-Mq for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 13:51:32 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout28.012.net.il ([80.179.55.184]:56125) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XfYA2-0000bO-Vo for 18752@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 13:51:29 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.mtaout28.012.net.il by mtaout28.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0NDN00F00IA1W400@mtaout28.012.net.il> for 18752@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 20:44:30 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by mtaout28.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0NDN009IXIM63N70@mtaout28.012.net.il>; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 20:44:30 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: <5442A4F4.1000201@cornell.edu> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:94746 > Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2014 13:35:48 -0400 > From: Ken Brown > CC: 18752@debbugs.gnu.org, fni-news@pirilampo.org > > On 10/18/2014 12:17 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Unoptimized builds make debugging easier, but are about 2 - 2.5 times > > slower than optimized ones. For that reason, the usual practice is to > > produce unoptimized builds for snapshots and pretests, but optimized > > ones for official releases. > > > > Latest GCC versions support a -Og optimization switch that gives you > > the best of both worlds. > > Do you happen to know how much of a performance difference there typically is > between -Og and -O2? No; measurements welcome. Personally, I'd be surprised to see more than a few percents of difference for Emacs.