From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs 22.2 release plans - request for a slight delay. Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 22:38:57 +0000 Message-ID: <20080306223857.GC3049@muc.de> References: <874pbwvmlv.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87ir01krr7.fsf@stupidchicken.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1204842363 7755 80.91.229.12 (6 Mar 2008 22:26:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 22:26:03 +0000 (UTC) Cc: martin rudalics , Stefan Monnier , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Chong Yidong Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Mar 06 23:26:30 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JXOXd-000316-Mi for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 06 Mar 2008 23:26:21 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JXOX6-0006UY-30 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 06 Mar 2008 17:25:48 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JXOWc-0006KA-Kk for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Mar 2008 17:25:18 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JXOWa-0006Il-Ar for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Mar 2008 17:25:17 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JXOWa-0006Ih-1y for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Mar 2008 17:25:16 -0500 Original-Received: from colin.muc.de ([193.149.48.1] helo=mail.muc.de) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JXOWZ-0007fR-Ez for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Mar 2008 17:25:15 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail 58921 invoked by uid 3782); 6 Mar 2008 22:25:13 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (p57AF7BA7.dip.t-dialin.net [87.175.123.167]) by colin2.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Thu, 06 Mar 2008 23:25:09 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 5130 invoked by uid 1000); 6 Mar 2008 22:38:57 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87ir01krr7.fsf@stupidchicken.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/1.1.5 (Fettercairn) X-Primary-Address: acm@muc.de X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: FreeBSD 4.6-4.9 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:91557 Archived-At: Hi, Yidong, It's me again, causing trouble. ;-( On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 12:25:16PM -0500, Chong Yidong wrote: > Hi, > As a reminder, I'll be rolling the 22.1.92 pretest on Friday. If any > of you need to delay the pretest for whatever reason, please send an > email. I'm asking for a slight delay (perhaps over the weekend?) to fix a serious bug in C mode, namely: Subject: Re: Unbearably slow editing in .h files From: martin rudalics (and Stefan) Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 23:51:34 +0100 Message-ID: <47C0A376.8080105@gmx.at> Visit lisp.h, go to the end of the buffer, and do M-x RET c-beginning-of-defun RET This is horrendously slow (~30 seconds). I've just had a look at c-beginning-of-defun, and I've narrowed the fault down to `c-in-knr-argdecl', where the code laboriously trundles back one paren pair at a time until it finds a "}" (or BOB). This is clearly suboptimal in a region with several hundred consecutive declarations without brace-blocks. There are ~900 consecutive paren-pairs in the tail of lisp.h. Even worse, c-in-knr-argdecl gets called twice, doubling the pain. Just how many paren/bracket pairs can there be in the K&R region of the header of a C function? There is no absolute limit, but such a region will typically look less extravagant than this: int foo (bar, baz, yuk) int bar [] ; int (*baz) (my_type) ; int (*) (void) (*yuk) (void) ; { , which has 7 such pairs. So perhaps if I put the limit at 32, this will be safe for any function not appearing in the Obfuscated C competition or deliberately written to break editors. :-) This will probably be a "quick and easy" change, taking, perhaps, an hour. However, it's probably worth while doing it calmly and carefully. ;-) -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).