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: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 20:00:34 +0300 Message-ID: <83lii9ksb1.fsf@gnu.org> References: <50098373.6080505@yandex.ru> <83txx17cnp.fsf@gnu.org> <83d33n259n.fsf@gnu.org> <83y5maze84.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1343149244 6524 80.91.229.3 (24 Jul 2012 17:00:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 17:00:44 +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 Tue Jul 24 19:00:43 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 1StiTT-0003Ir-J3 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 24 Jul 2012 19:00:43 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:53071 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1StiTT-000539-1G for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 24 Jul 2012 13:00:43 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:58315) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1StiTQ-00050v-Kl for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 24 Jul 2012 13:00:41 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1StiTM-0001lu-Bo for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 24 Jul 2012 13:00:40 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il ([80.179.55.166]:52829) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1StiTM-0001lm-31 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 24 Jul 2012 13:00:36 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0M7O00900CJ67300@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 24 Jul 2012 20:00:34 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.210.75]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0M7O009JQCKY0W80@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Tue, 24 Jul 2012 20:00:34 +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:151864 Archived-At: > From: Stefan Monnier > Cc: dmantipov@yandex.ru, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 19:06:53 -0400 > > The problem was that kill-buffer was taking up more than 10% of the time > of execution, which is simply unjustified. I only know of 2 ways to fix > such a problem: > - speed up kill-buffer. > - call kill-buffer less often. > (tho I guess you can also "fix" it by slowing down everything else, > but that's not very interesting, is it?). > So unless you mean that the right thing to do was to reduce calls to > kill-buffer, I don't know what else you might have wanted. I think, if we want to speed up byte compilation, the right thing is to speed the compilation itself, not buffer-killing whose relevance to byte compilation is, well, questionable.