bug#11545: 24.0.96-mac-2.92; Strange speed problem scrolling in C++ code

[Stefan Kangas <stefan@marxist.se>]

Hi Alan,

Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes:

> On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 06:05:15PM -0500, John Wiegley wrote:
>> >>>>> John Wiegley <jwiegley@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> >>>>>> YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu <mituharu@math.s.chiba-u.ac.jp> writes:
>> >> With the Time Profiler in Instrument.app, I found that fontification
>> >> of CC Mode in Emacs 24 is much heavier and causes frequent GCs than
>> >> that in Emacs 23.  Please try the following:
>
>> >>   1. Start Emacs 24 Mac port with -Q (alternatively, pressing the
>> >>      shift key.)
>> >>   2. M-x load-file PREFIX/share/emacs/23.4/lisp/progmodes/cc-fonts.elc
>> >>      RTE.
>> >>   3. Replay scrolling a large C++ file.
>
>> >> I'm not sure if this slowdown is intended or expected.
>
>> > Indeed, this makes the speed situation much better on Emacs 24.0.97.
>
>> I can now confirm that loading CC-Mode 5.32.3 into Emacs 23.4 causes
>> the identical speed issues that I was seeing with Emacs 24.0.97, so
>> this is a performance issue in the latest CC-Mode, not a bug in Emacs
>> 24 or with Mac-Port Emacs.
>
>> To the CC-Mode maintainers: is there a way to disable the slower, "more
>> correct" mode in the latest CC-Mode, and go back to the entirely
>> sufficient (for me) mode of previous versions?
>
> Not as such, no.  The only workaround at the moment is to use a
> "pre-correct" version of CC Mode in place of an up to date one.
>
> I've just done a binary chop on CC Mode versions, and it seems the latest
> version before (?the first of) these enhancements was the one created by
> this (mercurial) changeset (the repository can be downloaded from
> <http://cc-mode.sourceforge.net>):
>
>     changeset:   5109:981fa4f0270c
>     parent:      5107:bd4013c5633b
>     user:        acmacm
>     date:        Wed Sep 15 17:47:52 2010 +0000
>     files:       cc-engine.el
>     description:
>     (c-forward-<>-arglist-recur): Fix an infinite recursion.
>
> To undo these changes would be difficult, since several later
> enhancements and bug fixes are based on the new code.  I'll see if I can
> find some way of optimising the offending code - most of the time it's
> doing expensive checks and finding nothing.
>
> Anyhow, I've got the problem flagged as a bug now.  Thanks again for
> reporting it.

Just to follow up on this bug, which has seen no update in the last 7
years.  Has it been fixed by now?

Best regards,
Stefan Kangas