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: State of the overlay tree branch? Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 15:47:53 +0300 Message-ID: <838tajhsau.fsf@gnu.org> References: <834lldp18f.fsf@gnu.org> <9646341d-700b-4240-216b-8c0e753fa79f@arkona-technologies.de> <86d03e78-9984-f33e-a3f3-3faa4b34d78b@arkona-technologies.de> <83vadso9ad.fsf@gnu.org> <5155d5e2-6b5c-581e-89fe-4f3af717304f@arkona-technologies.de> <4c82fcbd-961a-c6ca-b1f0-6b85665cb339@arkona-technologies.de> <1ea4248a-11ce-00a9-0644-df7b2e5a3a58@arkona-technologies.de> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1521809216 4465 195.159.176.226 (23 Mar 2018 12:46:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 12:46:56 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Sebastian Sturm Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Mar 23 13:46:51 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 1ezM5p-00012b-SH for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 13:46:49 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37919 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ezM7t-0005gJ-81 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 08:48:57 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41126) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ezM6u-0005dY-33 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 08:47:57 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ezM6r-0002iS-0V for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 08:47:56 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:54293) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ezM6q-0002iE-SO; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 08:47:52 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=2060 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1ezM6q-0001bs-80; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 08:47:52 -0400 In-reply-to: <1ea4248a-11ce-00a9-0644-df7b2e5a3a58@arkona-technologies.de> (message from Sebastian Sturm on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 13:25:19 +0100) 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:223960 Archived-At: > From: Sebastian Sturm > Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 13:25:19 +0100 > > I haven't tested this very extensively yet, but artificial benchmark > results are now comparable to the noverlay branch and editing seems > similarly fluid. Many thanks for that! I'd be interested to see a comparison with a code that ignores the markers entirely, and uses just these 4: CONSIDER (BUF_PT (b), BUF_PT_BYTE (b)); CONSIDER (BUF_GPT (b), BUF_GPT_BYTE (b)); CONSIDER (BUF_BEGV (b), BUF_BEGV_BYTE (b)); CONSIDER (BUF_ZV (b), BUF_ZV_BYTE (b)); That's because BYTECHAR_DISTANCE_INCREMENT is probably a function of the number of markers.