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: Tue, 25 Jan 2022 05:34:50 +0200 Message-ID: <83v8y8ij39.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> <83r18zkmd5.fsf@gnu.org> <835yq9ls7j.fsf@gnu.org> <058b682b11240176288f@heytings.org> <83h79tjd2f.fsf@gnu.org> <058b682b11f58780b580@heytings.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="37622"; 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 Tue Jan 25 04:36:38 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 1nCCdK-0009Zg-DY for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 25 Jan 2022 04:36:38 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40940 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nCCdJ-00064L-1o for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 24 Jan 2022 22:36:37 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:46752) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nCCbo-0005E3-FJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 24 Jan 2022 22:35:05 -0500 Original-Received: from [2001:470:142:3::e] (port=53528 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 1nCCbm-0001xD-VE; Mon, 24 Jan 2022 22:35:02 -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=5oSXvr3OoFNQbYZIhyNBgBBDKaiqQlwD2w7A7i8uDy0=; b=ok36tzHGnpzg s4FHFYSQlerjCMjGZhZjNu81CA3PTlBvDs1YzRcN7l90zSyIrnQ6Hq5Qq3jhJvz3x3jztnbZL0QfM HUvA/yqYiV4+SUP8t25BpRWXbjS6wD91A9t+Y8Xi66ybh5L7oDMMmazS1J4Ri7l/QEiQm1swUoyWj WuVZ+yJjXa00Ylv61fRvyxr0zYVpLJOkfi2gQtFA4h9TrJmsxx23BiuviBrStHIn/fqitq9DLciB5 zGu5IhiILJiW7QVTbKy5HulWUFk2B9Hy0ONb8wDWRima5jyfKXvvg6O+GFhexXkz6PPgS4Og9M6+6 E54vi5S0GrdtBSVF1NCMpg==; Original-Received: from [87.69.77.57] (port=4296 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 1nCCbm-0000ib-55; Mon, 24 Jan 2022 22:35:02 -0500 In-Reply-To: <058b682b11f58780b580@heytings.org> (message from Gregory Heytings on Mon, 24 Jan 2022 20:41:40 +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:285333 Archived-At: > Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2022 20:41:40 +0000 > From: Gregory Heytings > cc: mattiase@acm.org, larsi@gnus.org, acm@muc.de, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, > emacs-devel@gnu.org > > > >> In short: byte-compilation is ~17.5% slower, execution is ~11% slower. > >> Nowhere near the "in the region of 1%" that was announced. > > > > The 1% figure was with a different benchmark. Each benchmark exercises > > a different part of the byte-code interpreter. > > > > At least the test suite is not a micro-benchmark. I exercises a large > subset of Emacs features, and I don't see anything in these ~110K lines of > Elisp that make them significantly different from other Elisp programs. > My conclusion is that Emacs is now, on average, about 10% slower. Your conclusion is premature. While micro-benchmarks don't represent a typical Emacs usage, neither are the tests in the test suite. They are run in batch mode, and the don't involve important Emacs subsystems, such as the display engine. So the actual slowdown in "normal" usage could be quite different from what the test suite measures.