From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: on a buffer performance test on Windows GNU EMACS 28, 27, 26 and 24 Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 09:18:18 +0300 Message-ID: <835z963p79.fsf@gnu.org> References: <86h7sr75yh.fsf@protonmail.com> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="10606"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Wayne Harris Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Aug 26 08:19:05 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 1kAom1-0002e8-OS for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 08:19:05 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:43722 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kAom0-0001dO-R4 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 02:19:04 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:35956) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kAolV-0001Cu-6V for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 02:18:33 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:54887) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kAolU-0008Od-NQ; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 02:18:32 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=4500 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1kAolU-0004Bd-5z; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 02:18:32 -0400 In-Reply-To: <86h7sr75yh.fsf@protonmail.com> (emacs-devel@gnu.org) 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:254240 Archived-At: > Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 00:35:50 -0300 > From: Wayne Harris via "Emacs development discussions." > > On Windows, I said M-x run-python, then said > > for i in range(100000): print(i) > > on both GNU EMACS 28, 27, 26 and GNU EMACS 24. It turns out GNU EMACS > 24 is the slowest. There doesn't seem to be a difference between 28 and > 27, but 26 is clearly slower too. > > I timed the speed of the buffer to scroll up. I used my own phone's > stop watch. I started out the slow one first, which was EMACS 24, only > after it was running I started the clock, then I started GNU EMACS 28's > code. The result was GNU EMACS 28 finishes in less than 8.00 seconds. > GNU EMACS 24 finishes after 24.44 seconds. I didn't time 27 and 26, but > I couldn't tell any difference between 28 and 27. And 26 was slower > than 27 and 28. > > What is the reason for the difference? Thanks! We changed the value of w32-pipe-read-delay to zero in Emacs 27, that sounds like the likely reason.