From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii 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> <83woc24ets.fsf@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 Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Nov 14 20:57:02 2019 Return-path: 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 ) 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 ) 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 ) 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 ) 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 ) 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." 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:242196 Archived-At: > Cc: acm@muc.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org > From: Dmitry Gutov > 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?