From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard M Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs,gmane.emacs.pretest.bugs Subject: bug#2445: 23.0.90; file name completion GCs a lot Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 14:25:37 -0500 Message-ID: References: Reply-To: rms@gnu.org, 2445@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1235677572 19601 80.91.229.12 (26 Feb 2009 19:46:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 19:46:12 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org, 2445@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Feb 26 20:47:27 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LcmCY-0008RY-1s for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 20:47:22 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43996 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LcmBD-000783-7f for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 14:45:59 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Lcm92-0006KZ-SA for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 14:43:45 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Lcm90-0006JW-UH for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 14:43:44 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=54826 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Lcm90-0006JE-F3 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 14:43:42 -0500 Original-Received: from rzlab.ucr.edu ([138.23.92.77]:32942) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Lcm8y-0002jD-HL for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 14:43:41 -0500 Original-Received: from rzlab.ucr.edu (rzlab.ucr.edu [127.0.0.1]) by rzlab.ucr.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id n1QJhbNg030520; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 11:43:38 -0800 Original-Received: (from debbugs@localhost) by rzlab.ucr.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id n1QJZ6ag028458; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 11:35:06 -0800 X-Loop: owner@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com Resent-From: Richard M Stallman Resent-To: bug-submit-list@donarmstrong.com Resent-CC: Emacs Bugs Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 19:35:06 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: owner@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com X-Emacs-PR-Message: followup 2445 X-Emacs-PR-Package: emacs X-Emacs-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 2445-submit@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com id=B2445.123567648426910 (code B ref 2445); Thu, 26 Feb 2009 19:35:06 +0000 Original-Received: (at 2445) by emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com; 26 Feb 2009 19:28:04 +0000 X-Spam-Bayes: score:0.5 Bayes not run. spammytokens:Tokens not available. hammytokens:Tokens not available. Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org (fencepost.gnu.org [140.186.70.10]) by rzlab.ucr.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id n1QJRt90026894; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 11:27:56 -0800 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1LclrV-0004C5-C8; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 14:25:37 -0500 In-reply-to: (message from Stefan Monnier on Wed, 25 Feb 2009 11:35:44 -0500) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 14:43:44 -0500 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:25748 gmane.emacs.pretest.bugs:24000 Archived-At: It may be, indeed. But there's no good reason why it should be much slower in such a circumstance. A factor of 2 slowdown should be expected, but not much more than that since the "xmail/foox" pattern doesn't offer much opportunity for partial completion. So it sounds more like an implementation inefficiency somewhere. If you can speed it up, that would be a fine solution to this bug report. But otherwise I think the feature should be disabled.