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: scratch/accurate-warning-pos: Solid progress: the branch now bootstraps. Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2018 12:47:27 +0000 Message-ID: <20181201124727.GC5102@ACM> References: <23334086-c0a1-7b34-4234-343719618bd1@cs.ucla.edu> <20181128120443.GA4036@ACM> <20181129220552.GI12576@ACM> <9dde4ed7-8401-6022-a668-258d48bb7726@cs.ucla.edu> <20181130185503.GA16256@ACM> <20181130220218.GB16256@ACM> <138d56b7-53df-1ea5-377c-8502245f1b6b@cs.ucla.edu> <5C0239DA.4030907@gmx.at> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1543668602 1879 195.159.176.226 (1 Dec 2018 12:50:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2018 12:50:02 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Cc: cpitclaudel@gmail.com, Paul Eggert , michael_heerdegen@web.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org, monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA, Eli Zaretskii To: martin rudalics Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Dec 01 13:49:58 2018 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 1gT4ia-0000Kp-Mx for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 01 Dec 2018 13:49:56 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:41041 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gT4kh-0000Nr-3n for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 01 Dec 2018 07:52:07 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54782) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gT4k6-0000Nl-C3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Dec 2018 07:51:31 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gT4k3-000177-4L for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Dec 2018 07:51:30 -0500 Original-Received: from colin.muc.de ([193.149.48.1]:17873 helo=mail.muc.de) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gT4k2-00015Q-Pw for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Dec 2018 07:51:27 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail 92477 invoked by uid 3782); 1 Dec 2018 12:51:25 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (p2E5D5B13.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [46.93.91.19]) by colin.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Sat, 01 Dec 2018 13:51:24 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 5194 invoked by uid 1000); 1 Dec 2018 12:47:27 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5C0239DA.4030907@gmx.at> 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: 193.149.48.1 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:231553 Archived-At: Hello, Martin. On Sat, Dec 01, 2018 at 08:35:54 +0100, martin rudalics wrote: > > All in all the status quo is preferable to > > scratch/accurate-warning-pos. Although I don't expect you to agree > > with me on this, I don't think I'm alone in having concerns about > > the significant performance issues here. > There are around 50 issues in current Emacs that annoy me at least as > much as wrong positions reported by the byte compiler. Likely, none of them are as difficult to address as the byte compiler bug. But who's going to address them, if they can expect the reaction I'm getting at the moment? > If, on the average, solving any such issue took away just 2% of the > performance of my Emacs, I'd experience an overall slowdown of 100% > when solving all of them. So please note that Paul is not alone with > his concerns. On average, solving these other bugs will cost 0% in performance. You're positing a completely unrealistic scenario. Have you even tried scratch/accurate-warning-pos? You've said in the past that you have a slow machine, so if that's still true, you would probably be the person to notice perceptible slowdown, should there be any. Do you notice any slowdown with it? The byte compiler bug is extremely unusual, possibly unique, in its resistance to being resolved. Just about every possible approach has been tried (along with several which are not possible), and only one approach, the one in scratch/accurate-warning-pos, has got anywhere at all. If you still object to this fix, even after trying it, what you are saying is that you prefer fast buggy software over slightly slower functional software. > martin -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).