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: Time to merge scratch/correct-warning-pos into master, perhaps? Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2022 08:16:38 +0200 Message-ID: <83r18zkmd5.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83mtjwzwkb.fsf@gnu.org> <87r198ytog.fsf@gnus.org> <87zgnvyb5y.fsf@gnus.org> <87bl03j10s.fsf@gnus.org> <9D116A4B-622F-4C80-83E6-2CDD7ED9AD25@acm.org> <58bb8030d532070ed420@heytings.org> <838rv7mzn4.fsf@gnu.org> <58bb8030d5ec3a6bde9f@heytings.org> <837darmygd.fsf@gnu.org> <58bb8030d59733b52b8d@heytings.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="20140"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: mattiase@acm.org, larsi@gnus.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, acm@muc.de To: Gregory Heytings Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Jan 23 07:19:08 2022 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 1nBWDT-00052Z-PE for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 23 Jan 2022 07:19:07 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50904 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nBWDR-0005lA-Kd for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 23 Jan 2022 01:19:05 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:44292) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nBWBO-000511-Im for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Jan 2022 01:16:58 -0500 Original-Received: from [2001:470:142:3::e] (port=37608 helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nBWBM-00079W-VU; Sun, 23 Jan 2022 01:16:56 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=poGYCYtQgGwpnDs+npzAgKFCrnMztqFFL0W/Eeb6rSc=; b=JuEOqfgWSfIR +cprBr+/KW5VIECx6Px8R1fuz84ZEbosNeWj/2qlS0UgUGy1q2VJpoVdjDCHf5Qc5EBfJZIaEJDP3 cdd7K0yoRK19sisd/abpWs2Xi2ITFVlJvpZCXgzPdgjaFoIQOnlEEprTfQPx0t3UsHN0QO0sWOcNk u4xwQjtw5alRBT3FtCR50epxkFnqDVP1ChZkE09v5Rind6qQzLBo0QSRnKVYB2TcXosoVoNiJmLTA Twb2zzZI9zFftauivbCW1l/Th32ToefOpY98TiaNjhpLwe8V551eWNnWj/XD1Rhat9nx94hiF6/ZG 0AfeMo1Fp7ccQdM6lPYpPw==; Original-Received: from [87.69.77.57] (port=4509 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nBWBM-0004Bc-37; Sun, 23 Jan 2022 01:16:56 -0500 In-Reply-To: <58bb8030d59733b52b8d@heytings.org> (message from Gregory Heytings on Sat, 22 Jan 2022 22:36:11 +0000) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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:285244 Archived-At: > Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2022 22:36:11 +0000 > From: Gregory Heytings > Cc: mattiase@acm.org, larsi@gnus.org, acm@muc.de, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, > emacs-devel@gnu.org > > > >>> That's consistent with what was reported at the beginning of this > >>> thread (~7% slowdown). Byte compilation is expected to be slightly > >>> slower with this change. > >> > >> But make check does a lot more than byte compilation, or am I missing > >> something? > > > > Not much more, IME. > > > > That's not what the numbers tell us (again 3b33a14380 vs 7922131bb2): > > make -j1 check: 181s (69s byte-compilation, 112s execution) vs 162s (58s byte-compilation, 104s execution) > make -j4 check: 45s (17s byte-compilation, 28s execution) vs 40s (15s byte-compilation, 25s execution) > make -j8 check: 26s (9s byte-compilation, 17s execution) vs 23s (7s byte-compilation, 16s execution) > > In short, the compilation time in make check is slower (which is > expected), but the execution time in make check is also consistently ~7% > slower. How did you separate compilation times from execution times, and what does "execution time" stand for -- is that elapsed time, CPU time, something else?