From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Bug #25608 and the comment-cache branch Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 16:44:57 +0000 Message-ID: <20170203164457.GB2250@acm> References: <20170202202418.GA2505@acm> <9d0b3156-e8b2-c2d8-0d0c-a025861e5e0c@yandex.ru> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1486140327 9282 195.159.176.226 (3 Feb 2017 16:45:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 16:45:27 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.2 (2016-11-26) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Dmitry Gutov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Feb 03 17:45:23 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cZgzC-0002DX-Nv for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2017 17:45:22 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:35730 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cZgzI-00039v-Cv for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2017 11:45:28 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54492) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cZgzC-00039p-Nn for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2017 11:45:23 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cZgz7-0008Pn-Se for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2017 11:45:22 -0500 Original-Received: from ocolin.muc.de ([193.149.48.4]:31960 helo=mail.muc.de) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cZgz7-0008Oc-IW for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Feb 2017 11:45:17 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail 83429 invoked by uid 3782); 3 Feb 2017 16:45:16 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (p548C746C.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.140.116.108]) by colin.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Fri, 03 Feb 2017 17:45:15 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 2336 invoked by uid 1000); 3 Feb 2017 16:44:57 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9d0b3156-e8b2-c2d8-0d0c-a025861e5e0c@yandex.ru> X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/1.1.12 (Macallan) X-Primary-Address: acm@muc.de X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: FreeBSD 9.x [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 193.149.48.4 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:211939 Archived-At: Hello, Dmitry. On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 00:14:12 +0200, Dmitry Gutov wrote: > On 02.02.2017 22:24, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > > I think we are all agreed that Emacs should handle correctly formed > > comments in C. comment-cache does correctly handle comments, and it has > > been shown to be essentially no slower than master. > Alan, you seem to have abandoned the previous discussion. Why don't we > finish it first? > You have been asked for some extra measurements, including the ones > using the alternative patch. Perhaps, for clarity's sake, you could post this alternative patch here, or if it's big, put it into a scratch branch. Then, at least we'll all know that we're talking about the same thing. > I still haven't seen those yet. I'm not sure what you want them for. The "alternative patch" didn't scan comments correctly all the time when I looked at it, just as the current back_comment doesn't. But, post the patch, remind me precisely what you want tested, and I'll do it. Constructive criticism of comment-cache would be most welcome. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).