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: Tue, 7 Apr 2020 20:10:18 +0000 Message-ID: <20200407201018.GD4009@ACM> References: <679ab47b-6e3e-65e6-f955-be58d59ed092@yandex.ru> <83sghhss8v.fsf@gnu.org> <671b5b41-663d-5ab9-f022-dc6c5ce54dd0@yandex.ru> <83r1x1sqkx.fsf@gnu.org> <83lfn9s63n.fsf@gnu.org> <83h7xvqsgc.fsf@gnu.org> <90749329-ccb1-f96e-29c0-b4ecbb81d1d4@yandex.ru> <837dyrqews.fsf@gnu.org> 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="19239"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: rudalics@gmx.at, rrandresf@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org, rms@gnu.org, Dmitry Gutov To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Apr 07 22:11:02 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 1jLuYn-0004sV-Ts for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 07 Apr 2020 22:11:01 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:52830 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jLuYn-0001d4-0N for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 07 Apr 2020 16:11:01 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:55394) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jLuYB-0000yY-Rb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Apr 2020 16:10:24 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jLuYA-0008QL-KD for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Apr 2020 16:10:23 -0400 Original-Received: from colin.muc.de ([193.149.48.1]:64613 helo=mail.muc.de) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jLuYA-0008Og-A8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Apr 2020 16:10:22 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail 34661 invoked by uid 3782); 7 Apr 2020 20:10:21 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (p4FE15BAB.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [79.225.91.171]) by localhost.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Tue, 07 Apr 2020 22:10:18 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 15132 invoked by uid 1000); 7 Apr 2020 20:10:18 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <837dyrqews.fsf@gnu.org> 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:246625 Archived-At: Hello, Eli. On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 22:22:43 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > From: Dmitry Gutov > > Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2020 18:04:13 +0300 > > Cc: rudalics@gmx.at, rrandresf@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org, rms@gnu.org, > > acm@muc.de > > Scenarios which are slow no matter what probably deserve a separate bug > > report each > Agreed, let's get that ball rolling. > > and are likely fixable without significant redesign. > Unfortunately, I'm not as optimistic as you on that one. > So here's the first bug report about a random slowness in CC Mode: > . visit src/w32.c on the emacs-27 branch and go to line 8747 > . C-e DEL -- this deletes the last 'e' of "else" > . the following line gets immediately fontified as a function name > . type 'e' -- then watch how the fontification of the next line to > its original face takes almost 1 sec -- this is the problem OK, I'm on Line 8759, where I've got: else cp->status = STATUS_READ_FAILED; (I haven't updated for a few days.) Is this the same place? > FTR, this is in Emacs 27.0.90 built with -Og, but a -O2 compilation of > Emacs 26.3 takes only slightly less time in this case. Is this not jit-lock-context-time? It takes 0.5s on my optimised build. j-l-context-time is 0.5 here. I'll admit I can't change the delay by changing j-l-c-t, but that might be due to not reinitialising jit-lock properly. However, first setting font-lock-support-mode to nil, then reinitialising font-lock, deleting then reinserting that "e", the line after the else _never_ gets its (lack of) face back. > (I will file a formal bug report about this if Alan wants me to.) No, it's fine like this! -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).