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: Edebug corrupting point in buffers; we need buffer-point and
 set-buffer-point, perhaps.
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2022 08:21:34 +0200
Message-ID: <83zgdbchzl.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <Y1+00x9hKKFpAVO6@ACM> <83v8o0dtg3.fsf@gnu.org>
 <Y1/cbPASCN2E5vC3@ACM> <83pme8dp2r.fsf@gnu.org>
 <Y1/tv1w7o/ugosdK@ACM> <83mt9bev37.fsf@gnu.org> <Y2A0FJS6dJa7shE6@ACM>
Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214";
	logging-data="12868"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io"
Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
To: Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de>
Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Nov 01 07:22:30 2022
Return-path: <emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org+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+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org>)
	id 1opkfO-0003Ai-Li
	for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 01 Nov 2022 07:22:30 +0100
Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1)
	(envelope-from <emacs-devel-bounces@gnu.org>)
	id 1opkeo-0004O0-5d; Tue, 01 Nov 2022 02:21:55 -0400
Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10])
 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 1opkei-0004N4-Vs
 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Nov 2022 02:21:49 -0400
Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e])
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <eliz@gnu.org>)
 id 1opkei-0000e4-5A; Tue, 01 Nov 2022 02:21:48 -0400
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=vvNQBDC4U8ETQ+OIr2OWO056RVrMcQrL165SLJX4/RU=; b=Rc0W1eDPrmMk
 ialfjrEzpayr9FlZrKSDzVOSipEwW1BmwtU4d/3ULb+4DbX68tg6D4nZ4eRgEyd9ki4y8z6Dq3Jnr
 VPSMkCUKLDc4YvQNCjJ+uT/EPAmuWhpTV6Y5i/1wTOUAdPafVKRLDL738jKMoB/UTU2oYMLpl5gXR
 AXHVxOufc5D47qzPzahtgzfaQZ7uCUQfuiB+/ywJ9isS9CTG1aZHzgLQBn7Sj7ijfO7DbXY6JHhPd
 5TyJUXuY0VpLe7FN/Ydv9+Zks3pGd9NM3t799QGpOSoJTnyD4usMARgSnJ6wtLyeXbL/dHxRvTCG8
 v/gRmmRMbskiGls8Jk7/kw==;
Original-Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7)
 by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <eliz@gnu.org>)
 id 1opkeh-0004k2-FR; Tue, 01 Nov 2022 02:21:47 -0400
In-Reply-To: <Y2A0FJS6dJa7shE6@ACM> (message from Alan Mackenzie on Mon, 31
 Oct 2022 20:46:12 +0000)
X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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>
Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" <emacs-devel-bounces@gnu.org>
Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org
Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:298906
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel/298906>

> Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2022 20:46:12 +0000
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> From: Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de>
> 
> > 17 times faster doesn't yet tell how important is the speedup, because
> > you give no absolute numbers, and they are what's important here.
> 
> I think I did.  To quote:
> > > It's probably moot, though, since the "slow" restoration only took
> > > 0.00137 seconds for all 207 buffers.

So if this means that the faster method gains you 1.3 msec for 200
buffers, I think such a difference is negligible in the context of
debugging, where code always runs much slower than normally.

> OK.  I now think these new functions aren't really needed, mainly because
> the current way, though much slower, is fast enough.  I still think they
> would be a neater way of getting/setting a buffer point, but it's not a
> big thing.

OK, thanks.