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: Extra info about 109170 Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2012 18:18:44 +0300 Message-ID: <83d33n259n.fsf@gnu.org> References: <50098373.6080505@yandex.ru> <83txx17cnp.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1342970330 26979 80.91.229.3 (22 Jul 2012 15:18:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2012 15:18:50 +0000 (UTC) Cc: dmantipov@yandex.ru, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Jul 22 17:18:50 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 1Ssxvl-00023w-GQ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 22 Jul 2012 17:18:49 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36470 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ssxvk-0003Wq-Hd for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 22 Jul 2012 11:18:48 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:38923) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ssxvi-0003Wk-Sa for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 22 Jul 2012 11:18:47 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ssxvh-0003K8-6T for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 22 Jul 2012 11:18:46 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il ([80.179.55.166]:53731) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ssxvg-0003Jw-UM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 22 Jul 2012 11:18:45 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0M7K00M00IG2OT00@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 22 Jul 2012 18:18:43 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.210.75]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0M7K00MFBIJ6P100@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Sun, 22 Jul 2012 18:18:42 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-Received-From: 80.179.55.166 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:151799 Archived-At: > From: Stefan Monnier > Cc: dmantipov@yandex.ru, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2012 05:57:20 -0400 > > > I'd appreciate if someone could explain why are we excited about 8% > > speedup, and on top of that in massive byte-compiling (something that > > can hardly be described as a frequent operation). > > 8% speedup in an actual run of Emacs is a pretty good speed up for such > a small change. Any speedup is good. I just don't see how speeding up kill-buffer is something people should be using up their time for. But I guess we cannot tell people which itch to scratch.