From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#20404: 25.0.50; Sometimes no fontification with jit-lock-defer-time Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 16:52:42 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87a8y0iji1.fsf@gnu.org> <20150422163110.68601.qmail@mail.muc.de> <20150422193204.GC4120@acm.fritz.box> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1429736064 828 80.91.229.3 (22 Apr 2015 20:54:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 20:54:24 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 20404@debbugs.gnu.org, Tassilo Horn To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Apr 22 22:54:12 2015 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 1Yl1es-0006L4-SZ for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 22:54:11 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36998 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yl1es-0001tw-Az for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 16:54:10 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42492) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yl1ep-0001tr-0r for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 16:54:07 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yl1el-00032q-0W for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 16:54:06 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:47046) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yl1ek-00032m-TM for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 16:54:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Yl1ek-0003JR-Ey for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 16:54:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Stefan Monnier Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 20:54:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 20404 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 20404-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B20404.142973599012674 (code B ref 20404); Wed, 22 Apr 2015 20:54:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 20404) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Apr 2015 20:53:10 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36822 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Yl1dt-0003IL-JL for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 16:53:10 -0400 Original-Received: from mercure.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.24.67]:57480) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Yl1dr-0003IC-1b for 20404@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 16:53:07 -0400 Original-Received: from hidalgo.iro.umontreal.ca (hidalgo.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.50]) by mercure.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1958785004; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 16:53:05 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from lechon.iro.umontreal.ca (lechon.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.242]) by hidalgo.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E94DC1E5B8C; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 16:52:42 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: by lechon.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix, from userid 20848) id BAA55B40DC; Wed, 22 Apr 2015 16:52:42 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <20150422193204.GC4120@acm.fritz.box> (Alan Mackenzie's message of "Wed, 22 Apr 2015 19:32:04 +0000") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-DIRO-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-DIRO-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-DIRO-MailScanner-SpamCheck: n'est pas un polluriel, SpamAssassin (score=-2.82, requis 5, autolearn=not spam, ALL_TRUSTED -2.82, MC_TSTLAST 0.00) X-DIRO-MailScanner-From: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca 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:101889 Archived-At: > How long is "too long"? Do you mean that, with > fast-but-imprecise-scrolling non-nil, jit-lock-defer-time nil, holding > down C-v, that there is no redisplay for several seconds? No, it's usually shorter than "several seconds", but it's only refreshed maybe twice a second (I use a repeat rate of 40/s) with a few waits that are longer than that. In contrast with jit-lock-defer-time set to 0, the scrolling is mostly smooth for me. > That would be suggesting that the time to scroll one screen (without > fontification) is longer than your auto-repeat interval, which > sounds implausible. It's not the case, indeed, no. [ Though, if I push the test with a sufficiently tall window (1600 vertical pixels, and a small enough font), I do get it to skip some redisplays even with font-lock-mode off. But that's also because my processor is slow ("Atom-Z530 @ 1.60GHz") and I compile with all kinds of extra debugging code. ] > No, I don't. ;-) What I see is somewhat jerky scrolling, mainly > unfontified, but with some fontification flashing on each screen some > short time (?10-100 milliseconds) before the next scroll. Hmm... interesting. I don't see the "some fontification flashing": for me it scrolls unfontified until I stop scrolling (at which point it's shown immediately fontified). I guess in your case, your machine is just fast enough to perform the fontification every few steps, whereas mine is always "trying to catch up". Maybe for you to see the same behavior as I see, you'd have to use a non-0 setting for jit-lock-defer-time to try and prevent the occasional deferred fontification (probably using a defer-time that's just above the repeat-time of your keyboard), but my hack (which basically disables the deferring when there's no pending input) would need to be tweaked (it treats timer==0 specially). > What I see with fast-but-imprecise-scrolling is somewhat jerky scrolling, > but each displayed screen being fully fontified. Yes, the always-fontified display is clearly the obvious advantage of fast-but-imprecise-scrolling. I'm personally bothered by the jerkiness of the scrolling, but if jit-lock-defer-time also gives you jerky scrolling, then clearly it's a loser. > Also, when I attempt to disable jit-lock-defer-time (through the > customisation interface) the jit-lock-defer-timer keeps running, and the > "defer" mechanism keeps running with it. This seems worth a bug report > in its own right. Yup, sounds like it deserves its own bug report. > I don't understand how what you're seeing is so bad. I thought you had a > powerful workstation, a class above a typical PC, and that you had your > auto-repeat rate at a conservative figure (25 or 30 per second) rather > than the insane rate (~40 per second) I have. I have various machines, but my desktops are a Fit-PC2 (at work) and a AMD E-350 (at home). So "powerful workstation" is not exactly the term I would employ. This said, "insane" is not the term I'd use to describe 40 repetitions per seconds either. > I have a 5 year old machine, not a blazingly fast super-modern one, > and my window is 64 lines deep. Right windows are typically between 65 and 80 lines tall, as well. Stefan