From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel
Subject: Re: Temporarily select-window, without updating mode-line face and
 cursor fill?
Date: Wed, 05 May 2021 14:54:02 +0300
Message-ID: <83y2ct2y79.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <56F746A2-B842-421E-8FBF-EA5E93EA26CE@gmail.com>
 <83pmya8d49.fsf@gnu.org> <904A57C8-C268-412F-815F-782017F47D5D@gmail.com>
 <83eeep8w0m.fsf@gnu.org> <81F181EB-D3C1-4619-B42A-1F49321EC544@gmail.com>
 <jwvlf8wwogv.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org>
 <CADwFkmnUtg6mZH5XiAVfGZAnX-fOY+WipKDN8ETANEQ4s3=t9g@mail.gmail.com>
Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214";
	logging-data="38546"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io"
Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, jdtsmith@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org
To: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas@gmail.com>
Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed May 05 13:54:50 2021
Return-path: <emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org>
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 <emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org>)
	id 1leG78-0009vi-Od
	for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 05 May 2021 13:54:50 +0200
Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37732 helo=lists1p.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1)
	(envelope-from <emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org>)
	id 1leG77-000213-GJ
	for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 05 May 2021 07:54:49 -0400
Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:59828)
 by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <eliz@gnu.org>) id 1leG6Z-0001Mq-Fk
 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 05 May 2021 07:54:15 -0400
Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:42536)
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1)
 (envelope-from <eliz@gnu.org>)
 id 1leG6Y-000194-Sp; Wed, 05 May 2021 07:54:14 -0400
Original-Received: from 84.94.185.95.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.95]:1877
 helo=home-c4e4a596f7)
 by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256)
 (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <eliz@gnu.org>)
 id 1leG6X-0003VM-TU; Wed, 05 May 2021 07:54:14 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CADwFkmnUtg6mZH5XiAVfGZAnX-fOY+WipKDN8ETANEQ4s3=t9g@mail.gmail.com>
 (message from Stefan Kangas on Tue, 4 May 2021 19:49:25 -0500)
X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." <emacs-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/emacs-devel>,
 <mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
 <mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org
Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel"
 <emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org>
Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:268905
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel/268905>

> From: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas@gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 4 May 2021 19:49:25 -0500
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:
> 
> > We really should simply speed up `line-number-at-pos`.
> > It shouldn't be hard.  See below what I do in nlinum.el.
> 
> Interesting, it seems much faster at least in this simplistic test:
> 
>     (benchmark-run 100000 (line-number-at-pos))
>     => (5.868677411999999 0 0.0)
> 
>     (benchmark-run 100000 (line-number-at-pos))
>     => (0.9772498589999999 1 0.5954873589998897)

Doesn't this measure the line number of the same position?  If so,
that's about as favorable benchmark for caching as possible, no?