From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel
Subject: Re: master 7362554: Widen around c-font-lock-fontify-region. This
 fixes bug #38049.
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 21:56:30 +0200
Message-ID: <83ftiq44gh.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <20191109144026.20810.76129@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org>
 <20191109144027.DDC3720927@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org>
 <38328d99-23c8-7ba7-a23d-e70ac0aab67a@yandex.ru> <20191111203445.GA5135@ACM>
 <7497e71d-bab6-fa04-bbc4-f52fadeda16d@yandex.ru> <20191113211936.GB4942@ACM>
 <6fc930a1-eb47-9e54-8752-8cf7ff041586@yandex.ru>
 <03042d05-2160-77c4-9abd-b0f13f638247@yandex.ru>
 <jwvzhgyecrm.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org> <83woc24ets.fsf@gnu.org>
 <jwvh83674as.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org> <83h836466w.fsf@gnu.org>
 <5ec033eb-7c91-38bb-0c14-661ce25a537b@yandex.ru>
Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226";
	logging-data="73527"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org"
Cc: acm@muc.de, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org
To: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru>
Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Nov 14 20:57:02 2019
Return-path: <emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org
Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17])
	by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
	(Exim 4.89)
	(envelope-from <emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>)
	id 1iVLEh-000Itf-GK
	for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 20:56:59 +0100
Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:33244 helo=lists1p.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1)
	(envelope-from <emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>)
	id 1iVLEf-0001Ur-NV
	for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 14:56:57 -0500
Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:34474)
 by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1)
 (envelope-from <eliz@gnu.org>) id 1iVLEX-0001UR-Fz
 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 14:56:52 -0500
Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:58831)
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <eliz@gnu.org>)
 id 1iVLEV-0002i6-PJ; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 14:56:47 -0500
Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=2202 helo=home-c4e4a596f7)
 by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256)
 (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <eliz@gnu.org>)
 id 1iVLEU-0002AP-I4; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 14:56:47 -0500
In-reply-to: <5ec033eb-7c91-38bb-0c14-661ce25a537b@yandex.ru> (message from
 Dmitry Gutov on Thu, 14 Nov 2019 21:48:24 +0200)
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." <emacs-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/emacs-devel>,
 <mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
 <mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" <emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:242196
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel/242196>

> Cc: acm@muc.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> From: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru>
> Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 21:48:24 +0200
> 
> > So you are saying that we should enlarge jit-lock-chunk-size to
> > most-positive-fixnum?  I don't think so.
> 
> No, it's more about the number of calls to font-lock functions. I.e. 
> fontifying line-by-line vs. doing it in a larger block. The size of that 
> block is not so important, as long as it's much bigger than a line.

I agree, of course, and the default value of jit-lock-chunk-size
agrees as well.

But calling jit-lock-ensure as shown might try to fontify much more,
right?