From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: emacs rendering comparisson between emacs23 and emacs26.3 Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2020 12:38:18 +0000 Message-ID: <20200322123818.GB32470@ACM> References: <86tv2h2vww.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="75338"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: rrandresf@gmail.com Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Mar 22 13:43:49 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jFzxE-000JWZ-VN for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 22 Mar 2020 13:43:48 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:46124 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jFzxD-00057w-VW for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 22 Mar 2020 08:43:47 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:48796) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jFzrz-0005Ts-R6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 22 Mar 2020 08:38:24 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jFzry-0005Ok-Ny for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 22 Mar 2020 08:38:23 -0400 Original-Received: from colin.muc.de ([193.149.48.1]:14329 helo=mail.muc.de) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jFzry-0005OV-Bw for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 22 Mar 2020 08:38:22 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail 35240 invoked by uid 3782); 22 Mar 2020 12:38:20 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (p4FE15B21.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [79.225.91.33]) by colin.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Sun, 22 Mar 2020 13:38:18 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 29044 invoked by uid 1000); 22 Mar 2020 12:38:18 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <86tv2h2vww.fsf@gmail.com> 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: 2.1.23 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:245664 Archived-At: Hello! On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 22:19:27 +0000, rrandresf@gmail.com wrote: > Hi. > On my TODO list (kind of worn hole). I have several notes. > One of them is comparing the rendering on emacs23 and emacs26.3. Today > Alan Mackenzie share an elisp Snippet: [ .... ] > When I saw this. The first thing that come to my mind was (it is > useful on one of the items of my TODO'S). So I did It on xdisp.c from > emacs26-3 source code. > Applying it on emacs23 and on emacs26 (on an opi+2e machine with 1 Ghz > processor) > This is the result: > --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- > emacs-23 > 162.7052059173584 > emacs-26.3 > 281.4721345901489 > --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- > The difference is very notorious. I realized it from a long time on > another ARM machine with 480 Mhz (which i still use aka my phone). But > I have not got the time and tools for letting you guys know about it. So > thanks Alan for sharing it. > Teoretically. What would be the cause of this difference on rendering > between versions? There have been lots of bug fixes and new features in CC Mode. Many of these have needed extra processing. Still, an increase of ~75% in processing time over the best part of a decade isn't that bad. Surely? Certainly not when compared with the increase in available computing power. One workaround is to reduce the fontification level with font-lock-maximum-decoration. A value of 3 is full fontification, 2 is quite a bit less. > Best Regards -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).