From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Luc Teirlinck Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: lists.texi Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 15:58:05 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <200506212058.j5LKw5P23961@raven.dms.auburn.edu> References: <200506182319.j5INJWF08937@raven.dms.auburn.edu> <200506190015.j5J0FQk09223@raven.dms.auburn.edu> <200506190037.j5J0b9Y09287@raven.dms.auburn.edu> <200506191747.j5JHlha11521@raven.dms.auburn.edu> <200506202312.j5KNCct19091@raven.dms.auburn.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1119387875 7594 80.91.229.2 (21 Jun 2005 21:04:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 21:04:35 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jun 21 23:04:31 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DkpuK-0005Ai-1y for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 21 Jun 2005 23:03:44 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Dkq0o-0004DW-GY for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 21 Jun 2005 17:10:26 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Dkpw2-00089P-6N for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Jun 2005 17:05:30 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Dkpvs-00084F-9k for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Jun 2005 17:05:20 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Dkpvq-0007z6-Rd for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 21 Jun 2005 17:05:18 -0400 Original-Received: from [131.204.53.104] (helo=manatee.dms.auburn.edu) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1DkptE-000719-HQ; Tue, 21 Jun 2005 17:02:36 -0400 Original-Received: from raven.dms.auburn.edu (raven.dms.auburn.edu [131.204.53.29]) by manatee.dms.auburn.edu (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j5LKxYCK025043; Tue, 21 Jun 2005 15:59:34 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: (from teirllm@localhost) by raven.dms.auburn.edu (8.11.7p1+Sun/8.11.7) id j5LKw5P23961; Tue, 21 Jun 2005 15:58:05 -0500 (CDT) X-Authentication-Warning: raven.dms.auburn.edu: teirllm set sender to teirllm@dms.auburn.edu using -f Original-To: ttn@gnu.org In-reply-to: (message from Thien-Thi Nguyen on 21 Jun 2005 12:35:39 -0400) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:39248 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:39248 Apparently these timings are not very fixed. In a freshly started Emacs, my proposed version took 12 seconds (instead of earlier 23) and the abstract versions 40 seconds (instead of 51). This gives a mysterious gain of 11 seconds for both. But now my proposed version runs 3.33 times faster than the abstract ones, instead of earlier 2.2. Sincerely, Luc.