From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: When should ralloc.c be used? Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2016 00:51:11 +0300 Message-ID: <8360oarfhs.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83h98nidvd.fsf@gnu.org> <87eg3rvtsf.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <83k2dihpm9.fsf@gnu.org> <8760p2wzgj.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <838ttyhhzu.fsf@gnu.org> <871szqwu51.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <831szqhbc2.fsf@gnu.org> <87d1itt79z.fsf_-_@users.sourceforge.net> <7baa18d4-2b09-caa8-005e-29008a383ad1@cs.ucla.edu> <83mvhwrgd5.fsf@gnu.org> <8539f38f-9a11-44c3-4de7-bb974c96206c@cs.ucla.edu> <83d1iq5ib1.fsf@gnu.org> <83r3753c8j.fsf@gnu.org> <83r374wh32.fsf@gnu.org> <83mvhruyrh.fsf@gnu.org> <83r36zr75f.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1477777923 30366 195.159.176.226 (29 Oct 2016 21:52:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2016 21:52:03 +0000 (UTC) Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Oct 29 23:51:59 2016 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 1c0bXT-0005Ez-SW for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 29 Oct 2016 23:51:43 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:56094 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c0bXW-0001fD-IU for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 29 Oct 2016 17:51:46 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39020) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c0bWy-0001du-6D for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 29 Oct 2016 17:51:12 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c0bWv-0000eU-6n for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 29 Oct 2016 17:51:12 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:56637) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c0bWv-0000eQ-3B; Sat, 29 Oct 2016 17:51:09 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:2015 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1c0bWn-000291-VG; Sat, 29 Oct 2016 17:51:02 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Richard Stallman on Sat, 29 Oct 2016 12:37:34 -0400) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e 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:208963 Archived-At: > From: Richard Stallman > CC: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2016 12:37:34 -0400 > > > Try the patch I pointed to in a previous message, and see what kind of > > speedup is possible by 2 simple measures. > > It would be a lot of work for me to try that myself, and I think it is > not necessary if you already tried it. What fractional speedup did > you observe when you tried it? About 20, as I wrote.