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#57447: 28.1.90; Can font-lock stop requesting fontification of invisible text? Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2022 14:05:00 +0300 Message-ID: <83r112ymjn.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87fshi6ygu.fsf@localhost> <837d2u184w.fsf@gnu.org> <87bks66sfk.fsf@localhost> <831qt211tw.fsf@gnu.org> <8735diezv3.fsf@localhost> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="39703"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: 57447@debbugs.gnu.org To: Ihor Radchenko , Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Aug 27 13:05:28 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 1oRtd2-000AAr-5m for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 27 Aug 2022 13:05:28 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:55084 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oRtd1-0001Qw-2l for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 27 Aug 2022 07:05:27 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:44696) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oRtcc-0001QU-Cn for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Aug 2022 07:05:05 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:37330) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oRtcc-0007XI-4a for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Aug 2022 07:05:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1oRtcc-0001xy-0F for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Aug 2022 07:05:02 -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, 27 Aug 2022 11:05:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 57447 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 57447-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B57447.16615982937541 (code B ref 57447); Sat, 27 Aug 2022 11:05:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 57447) by debbugs.gnu.org; 27 Aug 2022 11:04:53 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55312 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1oRtcT-0001xZ-07 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 27 Aug 2022 07:04:53 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:39838) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1oRtcR-0001xK-6M for 57447@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 27 Aug 2022 07:04:51 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:45996) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oRtcL-0007Uv-LG; Sat, 27 Aug 2022 07:04:45 -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=rP5+KeCv6iOWZeXFH1oYImaL0LG7P76IJxKvRF/isEA=; b=q+RPwIbVu7z0 TapnKuN+a8Wc8q9pyRwg4+v/xB3x0tFYzRs97KrCb7SUO0Roq4asuSgE0qID6FNoCaCKJEEYu25AX pPisrK8AQq+n99FZrtMS5VmQZzqhNFyLFTyMhwTt5IKhWO4BSjuC3A8I6gVtE20gh/yim/4t+d8LI bTAHa/KkF7GiPzkmq93Kyrod55N0n6qnkEXTpFFzzxqZqKSlbihxK1rIwf+n9oACsVO6vUnoRT/Hz gYpjcrWppoCLoBZfUGfqYvbic7gI18ZoAzBymX/P1LU4xb90mmnZty0mCBYEb4hnyYWurR8vuT3HK Rr+uo/4PATcST2r5rFimgg==; Original-Received: from [87.69.77.57] (port=1632 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 1oRtcL-0002vj-49; Sat, 27 Aug 2022 07:04:45 -0400 In-Reply-To: <8735diezv3.fsf@localhost> (message from Ihor Radchenko on Sat, 27 Aug 2022 18:37:36 +0800) 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:240900 Archived-At: > From: Ihor Radchenko > Cc: 57447@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2022 18:37:36 +0800 > > > If the size is smaller than the visible portion of the buffer, it will > > cause repeated calls to fontification-functions, instead of just one > > call. If fontification-functions do their job in approximately linear > > time, you shouldn't see any adverse effects, I think. But if each > > call to fontification-functions incurs some one-time overhead that is > > relatively expensive, the result could be slower redisplay when the > > window is scrolled a lot. > > This may be an issue in some scenarios. > I am wondering if something like font-lock-extend-region-functions may > be utilized to shrink the fontification boundaries. I don't know. Maybe Stefan does. > > I only want to test that if you see something that is inconsistent > > with my description of how this stuff works, including the value of > > jit-lock-chunk-size. > > If jit-lock-chunk-size must be an actual upper bound > "Jit-lock fontifies chunks of at most this many characters at a time." > > then it does not always hold: How did you collect the BEG and END values? FWIW, I don't see anything in jit-lock that enlarges the chunk size, except perhaps in the stealth-fontification case, which you didn't activate?