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 19:17:39 +0300 Message-ID: <838ukde4ik.fsf@gnu.org> References: <86h9z2rb42.fsf@example.com> <83siim1z6h.fsf@gnu.org> <86iojimmjg.fsf@example.com> <83wq7ydjc7.fsf@gnu.org> <86zjctlvkv.fsf@example.com> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1413649106 32320 80.91.229.3 (18 Oct 2014 16:18:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2014 16:18:26 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 18752@debbugs.gnu.org, fni-news@pirilampo.org To: Dani Moncayo Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Oct 18 18:18:17 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 1XfWhs-00041b-EG for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 18:18:16 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37192 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XfWhs-0007D9-0G for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 12:18:16 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50335) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XfWhk-0007D3-6M for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 12:18:14 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XfWhe-0002Q0-90 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 12:18:08 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:57047) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XfWhe-0002Pw-6M for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 12:18:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XfWhd-0000eh-Nm for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 12:18:01 -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 16:18:01 +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=B18752.14136490802511 (code B ref 18752); Sat, 18 Oct 2014 16:18:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 18752) by debbugs.gnu.org; 18 Oct 2014 16:18:00 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48611 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XfWhb-0000eQ-09 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 12:17:59 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout25.012.net.il ([80.179.55.181]:47257) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XfWhX-0000eF-IC for 18752@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 12:17:56 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.mtaout25.012.net.il by mtaout25.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0NDN00G00E5OLF00@mtaout25.012.net.il> for 18752@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 19:13:12 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by mtaout25.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0NDN00G92EE06L10@mtaout25.012.net.il>; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 19:13:12 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: 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:94736 > Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2014 18:11:53 +0200 > From: Dani Moncayo > Cc: Eli Zaretskii , 18752@debbugs.gnu.org > > > Dani, can you build an optimized version as well next time? > > I could, yes. But before, I'd like to understand what are the > advantages and drawbacks of optimized vs unoptimized builds. Could > someone explain that to me, or tell me where could I read that > information? 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. > Also, what should I do to produce an optimized build? "nt/INSTALL" > shows an example of how to configure an unoptimized build, but there > is no example for an optimized one. How about adding that lacking > example to the file? If you drop the "CFLAGS=" part, you get an optimized build by default. The example of that is already in nt/INSTALL, even before the one that shows how to pass non-default CFLAGS.