From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: The Emacs master is much slower than the emacs-27 branch. Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2020 11:14:25 +0200 Message-ID: <83h7p0d37y.fsf@gnu.org> References: <877dpyzg9d.fsf@rub.de> <87czzpsyqn.fsf@gmx.net> <83o8j9eqwx.fsf@gnu.org> <874kl1spe9.fsf@gmx.net> <83blf9em55.fsf@gnu.org> <87zh2tr82r.fsf@gmx.net> <87v9dhr7i5.fsf@gmx.net> <838sadefiw.fsf@gnu.org> <83360le421.fsf@gnu.org> <83y2idcn8q.fsf@gnu.org> <83wnxxcmjr.fsf@gnu.org> <83tut0d7e9.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="2968"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: acm@muc.de, stephen.berman@gmx.net, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Gregory Heytings Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Dec 05 10:15:31 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 1klTf9-0000fb-Dv for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 05 Dec 2020 10:15:31 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:59654 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1klTf8-0008Dj-GL for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 05 Dec 2020 04:15:30 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:60572) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1klTeN-0007mk-4p for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Dec 2020 04:14:43 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:43252) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1klTeL-0001dr-Ie; Sat, 05 Dec 2020 04:14:41 -0500 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=1582 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1klTeL-0001Ks-0h; Sat, 05 Dec 2020 04:14:41 -0500 In-Reply-To: (message from Gregory Heytings on Sat, 05 Dec 2020 08:44:38 +0000) 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:260345 Archived-At: > Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2020 08:44:38 +0000 > From: Gregory Heytings > cc: acm@muc.de, stephen.berman@gmx.net, emacs-devel@gnu.org > > > I don't know what happens on your computer (what is your > > platform/compiler?) but on mine (Debian GNU/Linux with the latest Linux > > kernel and the latest GCC) the effect on -O0 is almost the same as on > > -Og for this particular benchmark. I just tried again on the emacs-27 > > branch: > > > > -Og: ~67s > > -O0: ~63s > > -O1: ~26s > > -O2: ~18s > > -O3: ~17s > > > > I'm sure you'll ask, so to avoid another round: yes, with make bootstrap, > on a fresh clone. And I used CLFAGS='-Og -g3', CLFAGS='-O0 -g3', > CLFAGS='-O1 -g3', CLFAGS='-O2 -g3' and CLFAGS='-O3 -g3'. If you need > other timings, feel free to ask. I wasn't going to ask that, but I would like to point out one more potential difference: I didn't compare two builds of master before and after that commit. Instead, I timed 32-bit builds of the current emacs-27 and master branches which were both built with the following optional switches to configure: --with-wide-int --with-modules --enable-checking=yes,glyphs 'CFLAGS=-O0 -gdwarf-4 -g3' Again, I don't expect any of this to matter so dramatically, so this is just for completeness' sake.