From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Two strange messages while building Emacs on MS-Windows Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 18:20:51 +0200 Message-ID: <838v95c1zw.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83mwxpmtp6.fsf@gnu.org> <83fw3hm0nn.fsf@gnu.org> <83k3srdh3d.fsf@gnu.org> <878v97xfbi.fsf@wanadoo.es> <83boe3cb2e.fsf@gnu.org> <874njvxbrs.fsf@wanadoo.es> <837goqdgaw.fsf@gnu.org> <87zk1mx2ua.fsf@wanadoo.es> <83624acufq.fsf@gnu.org> <87d2yi17s5.fsf@wanadoo.es> <83fw3eas78.fsf@gnu.org> <87txrtzzfs.fsf@wanadoo.es> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1355156490 21669 80.91.229.3 (10 Dec 2012 16:21:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:21:30 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=D3scar?= Fuentes Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Dec 10 17:21:44 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ti66t-0008TY-Pp for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 17:21:39 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44560 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ti66h-0004G4-0n for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 11:21:27 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:34561) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ti66Z-0004FV-PQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 11:21:26 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ti66V-00014b-8a for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 11:21:19 -0500 Original-Received: from mtaout22.012.net.il ([80.179.55.172]:57520) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ti66V-00014O-02 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 11:21:15 -0500 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MET00C00P7OVL00@a-mtaout22.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 18:21:00 +0200 (IST) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MET00C48PEZ6KE0@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 18:21:00 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: <87txrtzzfs.fsf@wanadoo.es> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 X-Received-From: 80.179.55.172 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:155437 Archived-At: > From: =D3scar Fuentes > Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:42:15 +0100 >=20 > It says that MS Windows is ~80% slower than GNU/Linux at running em= acs > with for evaling a simple expression :-) That's more reasonable, and probably even expected, see below. > Serioulsy, though, Emacs does quite a few things at startup. Indeed. And on Windows it does more. What's more, quite a few of those things involves calling 'stat', which on Windows is much slower= . > Still, I don't understand how your i7 is 90% slower than my old Q66= 00, > running the same OS. IIRC you mentioned that your build is unoptimi= zed. > Mine is with default configuration, which defaults to -O2. A more important difference is that I do have an anti-virus installed (although the few tens of milliseconds that takes, if that's the reason, I'm gladly willing to pay). And my system is heavily used fo= r years (the motherboard is new, but the OS installation is 7-year old)= , so it has quite a lot of baggage in its Registry etc. On top of that, I didn't use MSYS to time the commands. I have a clone of the 'time' command (called 'timep', because 'time' is taken by an internal cmd command that does something very different) which uses Windows APIs to report times used by its child processes. This alone can explain the difference. Anyway, a 4 to 6 min bootstrap is something I can easily live with, especially since I almost never do it.