From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#56393: Actually fix the long lines display bug Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2022 14:59:35 +0300 Message-ID: <838rp233a0.fsf@gnu.org> References: <38c1a31040d2d2bc47ae@heytings.org> <38c1a310405bd4bbe370@heytings.org> <87a69n98yy.fsf@yahoo.com> <38c1a31040f5546dbd3a@heytings.org> <87czej6buq.fsf@gnus.org> <38c1a31040e66d2b273e@heytings.org> <834jzt59jt.fsf@gnu.org> <831qux5806.fsf@gnu.org> <9C70BEF7-08EC-46A0-89D3-547417FA01F8@gmail.com> <83let43xg9.fsf@gnu.org> <83sfna3gzq.fsf@gnu.org> <83o7xy3amx.fsf@gnu.org> <83ilo638qt.fsf@gnu.org> <83czee35ad.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="6663"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: gerd.moellmann@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, 56393@debbugs.gnu.org To: Gregory Heytings Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Jul 09 14:01:15 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1oA997-0001XG-FQ for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 09 Jul 2022 14:01:13 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42220 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oA996-0007eM-22 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 09 Jul 2022 08:01:12 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:58064) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oA980-0007ds-Pr for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Jul 2022 08:00:04 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:40068) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oA97z-00079d-EB for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Jul 2022 08:00:03 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1oA97z-0005YA-6f for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Jul 2022 08:00:03 -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, 09 Jul 2022 12:00:03 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 56393 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 56393-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B56393.165736799221280 (code B ref 56393); Sat, 09 Jul 2022 12:00:03 +0000 Original-Received: (at 56393) by debbugs.gnu.org; 9 Jul 2022 11:59:52 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33965 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1oA97o-0005XA-5V for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 09 Jul 2022 07:59:52 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:43570) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1oA97m-0005Wx-Ot for 56393@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 09 Jul 2022 07:59:51 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:41930) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oA97h-00077n-5B; Sat, 09 Jul 2022 07:59:45 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=fJ05Um9u3PTGj9Sut6DfqSku7qVdwsthGEwN05eQNvI=; b=rjapObjOJsjI CZ01at/bbJkOhGIQ/twU6RbDfeNvPWAl/0Zm/vWKcfWZ94Yg62VPhyU3FrLDmLtW39kKWHztz4/J/ V04CUirpfPYmTxdmJTDe87PJbO2lgYuybbKQLEdh7L2BF4a0OH4viE/Ex5c3ZA4JTyotxda+u3GQa ZHqirp5B/zR18SeAaSOU55EPtLEuJUWGxmcMa1lvosenw8Qt2jRC3Rk1J9Tq99kBBaF42tiyBdl4e ZL0aDC3l/Lbfy/DhDZ1BwVXh1rYaYpbpZdkSKCip+VoMn7+ehw1J52isO3F81fpZP+5XefSbP6dEK FZdI5RQyEjycC/OS8OLR+w==; Original-Received: from [87.69.77.57] (port=4256 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oA97f-0006Qb-Vw; Sat, 09 Jul 2022 07:59:45 -0400 In-Reply-To: (message from Gregory Heytings on Sat, 09 Jul 2022 11:48:27 +0000) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:236509 Archived-At: > Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2022 11:48:27 +0000 > From: Gregory Heytings > cc: gerd.moellmann@gmail.com, larsi@gnus.org, 56393@debbugs.gnu.org > > >> But fontification-functions are not the only problem here. What I also > >> observe is that, for example, moving in a fontified buffer takes (much) > >> longer than moving in a non-fontified buffer. For example, in > >> long-line.xml, vertical-motion takes about 40 ms backward and 10 ms > >> forward in a non-fontified buffer, and about 180 ms backward and 40 ms > >> forward in a fontified buffer. > > > > I guess that's because vertical-motion calls the display code, and that > > calls fontification-functions. > > > > No, fontification-functions are not called when moving around in an > already fontified portion of the buffer. So the slowdown of C-n and C-p > (and others) in that case is not caused by fontification-functions. That's very strange, since AFAIK moving in a non-fontified buffer involves both fontifications and display of the fontified text, whereas moving through a fontified buffer involves only the latter. FWIW, I've _never_ seen movement through fontified buffer being slower than in a non-fontified one. I'd be very interested to know what slows down the movement in a fontified buffer.