On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 7:28 PM Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:

> > I see. Then I think we should figure out why it's become more expensive
> > in Emacs 25 (if that is indeed the case).
>
> It isn't yet clear that this is what happened.  Can someone time this
> in both versions compiled with the same optimization options?
>

I’m not thinking that this is the case anymore… at least, I don’t have any
evidence to point to that. I still don’t know exactly what state emacs has
to be in for it to be super painfully slow. The fix/workaround, while it
helped, only really shaved off 4ms or so from a typometer avg, which is
significant, but it wasn’t as bad as I had seen it in the slow case, so I’m
probably missing something in the repro.

Any way, I’m happy to consider this bug closed if you all are, though I
think that adding additional caveats to the docs would be wonderful, this
is a particularly nasty/surprising thing.

Thank you all for your help.
-- 
Aaron