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: Pixel-based display functions Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2015 12:18:05 +0200 Message-ID: <83wq3uauua.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83lhkhiq8t.fsf@gnu.org> <54CE54A3.1020707@gmx.at> <838ughilmo.fsf@gnu.org> <54CE6BD2.8000402@gmx.at> <8361bliin0.fsf@gnu.org> <83386piiby.fsf@gnu.org> <87oap9yoti.fsf@building.gnus.org> <874mqzvnwo.fsf@building.gnus.org> <83h9uzeb4a.fsf@gnu.org> <87bnl7jrr7.fsf@building.gnus.org> <831tm3dt8u.fsf@gnu.org> <87k2zvgj4d.fsf@building.gnus.org> <83siejcahb.fsf@gnu.org> <87bnl7gh7x.fsf@building.gnus.org> <87zj8qcqjv.fsf@building.gnus.org> <87r3u2cn46.fsf@building.gnus.org> <838ugacfd3.fsf@gnu.org> <87fvaiccjk.fsf@building.gnus.org> <83zj8qawhh.fsf@gnu.org> <874mqycadq.fsf@building.gnus.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1423304322 21297 80.91.229.3 (7 Feb 2015 10:18:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2015 10:18:42 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Lars Ingebrigtsen Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Feb 07 11:18:38 2015 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 1YK2TF-0002eV-OM for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2015 11:18:37 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51999 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YK2TE-0004sU-Ts for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2015 05:18:36 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59453) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YK2Su-0004l0-Bw for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2015 05:18:20 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YK2Sp-0003kl-D7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2015 05:18:16 -0500 Original-Received: from mtaout23.012.net.il ([80.179.55.175]:39331) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YK2Sp-0003ke-5w for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2015 05:18:11 -0500 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout23.012.net.il by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0NJE00300BZZ3V00@a-mtaout23.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2015 12:18:04 +0200 (IST) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0NJE00349CM41O50@a-mtaout23.012.net.il>; Sat, 07 Feb 2015 12:18:04 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: <874mqycadq.fsf@building.gnus.org> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 X-Received-From: 80.179.55.175 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:182579 Archived-At: > From: Lars Ingebrigtsen > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2015 20:57:05 +1100 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > > It looks like your previous timings, viz. > > > >> shr-insert-document 1 5.11859327 5.11859327 > >> shr-pixel-buffer-width 1940 1.8345742170 0.0009456568 > >> shr-fold-lines 1579 1.7859513240 0.0011310648 > >> shr-vertical-motion 2625 1.7517520130 0.0006673341 > > > > and > > > >> (benchmark-run 5000 (vertical-motion (cons (/ 700 (frame-char-width)) 0))) > >> => (0.942894006 2 0.05716983599999992) > > > > were better, at least as far as vertical-motion was concerned. What > > happened that caused almost twofold degradation in speed of > > shr-vertical-motion? And why does a single call to vertical-motion > > take ~0.2 msec, while a single call to shr-vertical-motion takes 1.7 > > msec, more than 8 times more? > > My guess would be the extra function call overhead, along with the ELP > instrumentation overhead. That could explain the shr-vertical-motion vs vertical-motion alone, but what about the twofold degradation of speed, from 1.75 sec for 2625 calls to 1.46 sec for 854 calls? > In my Firefox, it's shown as "Extant Carnivora species [Show]". Do you > have Javascript switched on or something? It's a JS table toggle or > something. I have no idea, this is the default Firefox configuration. Anyway, I see the "[show]" part now -- it'ss at the extreme right of that line, so it was outside of my FOV. But it is merely 500 lines, whereas your previous message said 1500, I think, and showed 1500 calls to shr-fold-line to prove it. What am I missing?