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: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 18:41:26 +0300 Message-ID: <83siim1z6h.fsf@gnu.org> References: <86h9z2rb42.fsf@example.com> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1413560544 32245 80.91.229.3 (17 Oct 2014 15:42:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 15:42:24 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 18752@debbugs.gnu.org To: Fabrice Niessen Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Oct 17 17:42:18 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 1Xf9fV-0003c7-Fl for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 17:42:17 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:33072 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xf9fV-0000DO-4n for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 11:42:17 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35655) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xf9fM-0000DG-Es for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 11:42:13 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xf9fH-0006he-4F for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 11:42:08 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:56008) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xf9fH-0006ha-1a for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 11:42:03 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Xf9fG-0001lZ-H4 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 11:42:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 15:42:02 +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=B18752.14135605036753 (code B ref 18752); Fri, 17 Oct 2014 15:42:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 18752) by debbugs.gnu.org; 17 Oct 2014 15:41:43 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47572 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Xf9ew-0001kq-Iz for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 11:41:43 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il ([80.179.55.166]:39329) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Xf9et-0001kd-AA for 18752@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 11:41:41 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0NDL00F00HW5CZ00@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for 18752@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 18:41:37 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0NDL00F3ZI9B6T60@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Fri, 17 Oct 2014 18:41:36 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: <86h9z2rb42.fsf@example.com> 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:94677 > From: Fabrice Niessen > Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 17:04:29 +0200 > > Maybe the test is partial -- even surely. Though, I wonder why Cygwin > Emacs is 2 times quicker than its Windows counterpart to tangle an Org > file, and export it to HTML? > > Observations: > > - With the Widows binary "GNU Emacs 24.3.94.1 (i686-pc-mingw32) of > 2014-10-02" (compiled by Dani), it always takes around 2:35. > > - With the Cygwin executable "GNU Emacs 24.3.93.1 (i686-pc-cygwin) of > 2014-08-15", it always just takes around 1:19 for the same operation. > > Needless to say: same config file, same Org mode version (8.3beta from > Git), same machine, etc. > > The file I used for the test is my Emacs configuration file, to be found > on https://github.com/fniessen/emacs-leuven/blob/master/emacs-leuven.txt. > > The command I executed, and for which I took the above measures, is: > > --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- > (defun org-save-buffer-and-do-related () > "Save buffer, execute/tangle code blocks, and export to HTML." > (interactive) > (let* ((orgfile (buffer-file-name)) > (base-name (file-name-base orgfile)) > (htmlfile (concat base-name ".html"))) > (save-buffer) > (when (derived-mode-p 'org-mode) > (let ((before-save-hook nil)) > (save-buffer)) > (org-babel-tangle) > (when (file-exists-p htmlfile) > (if (file-newer-than-file-p orgfile htmlfile) > (org-html-export-to-html) > (message "HTML is up to date with Org file")))))) > --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- You forgot to tell on what OS version was that. You also forgot to tell what compiler options were used for each build. E.g., if the Cygwin build is optimized, whereas the MinGW build is not, the twofold speedup is expected (I generally see a factor of 2.5 between an optimized and unoptimized build). Also, showing a profile collected by "M-x profiler-start RET" might give some clues.