From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: emacs rendering comparisson between emacs23 and emacs26.3 Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 20:34:37 +0300 Message-ID: <83a73w1l8y.fsf@gnu.org> References: <86tv2h2vww.fsf@gmail.com> <20200322123818.GB32470@ACM> <87eetk5swm.fsf@gnu.org> <20200326193128.GC14092@ACM> <86d08y4zsx.fsf@gmail.com> <83sghs7qdz.fsf@gnu.org> <83h7y63sjj.fsf@gnu.org> <834ku43c61.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="56918"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: acm@muc.de, rrandresf@gmail.com, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Andrea Corallo Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Mar 31 19:35:10 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 1jJKn6-000EgM-VE for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 19:35:08 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42277 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jJKn6-0003g0-07 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 13:35:08 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:51476) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jJKmX-00034Y-Qt for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 13:34:34 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:43771) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jJKmW-00086i-Sd; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 13:34:32 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=1445 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1jJKmP-0001Pg-0t; Tue, 31 Mar 2020 13:34:25 -0400 In-Reply-To: (message from Andrea Corallo on Tue, 31 Mar 2020 16:05:08 +0000) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] 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:246132 Archived-At: > From: Andrea Corallo > Cc: rms@gnu.org, acm@muc.de, rrandresf@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2020 16:05:08 +0000 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > > When we know a new feature causes significant slowdown, we either fix > > it, or provide a way to disable or work around it. The problem is, we > > don't always know there's slowdown, as it frequently happens only in > > specific rare use cases. (John said some time ago we should have a > > benchmarking test suite, but I don't think anyone's working on it.) > > https://elpa.gnu.org/packages/elisp-benchmarks.html ? (Any idea why this isn't in the ELPA repository?) This might be a beginning, but the issue at hand is not to benchmark Emacs Lisp programs, it is to benchmark Emacs commands, so we could make sure we don't have speed regressions.