From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: kai.grossjohann@gmx.net (Kai =?iso-8859-1?q?Gro=DFjohann?=) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Gnu Emacs way slower than XEmacs Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 09:36:45 +0200 Organization: University of Duisburg, Germany Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <84d6jcjqia.fsf@lucy.is.informatik.uni-duisburg.de> References: <84r87ulpts.fsf@boost-consulting.com> <20030422123301.GA26968@gnu.org> <84lly2lity.fsf@boost-consulting.com> <20030422150920.GA7693@gnu.org> <84n0iijz8u.fsf@boost-consulting.com> <848yu2tmc4.fsf@lucy.is.informatik.uni-duisburg.de> <9003-Wed23Apr2003214013+0300-eliz@elta.co.il> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1051170111 1338 80.91.224.249 (24 Apr 2003 07:41:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 07:41:51 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Thu Apr 24 09:41:50 2003 Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 198bM6-0000JX-00 for ; Thu, 24 Apr 2003 09:41:18 +0200 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 198bSE-0007iK-00 for ; Thu, 24 Apr 2003 09:47:38 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 198bMk-0005FQ-00 for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Thu, 24 Apr 2003 03:41:58 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 198bLN-0004w5-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 24 Apr 2003 03:40:33 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 198bKp-0004VK-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 24 Apr 2003 03:40:00 -0400 Original-Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.224.249]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 198bKd-0004Ih-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 24 Apr 2003 03:39:47 -0400 Original-Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 198bJJ-0000A8-00 for ; Thu, 24 Apr 2003 09:38:25 +0200 Mail-Followup-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-Received: from news by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 198bJ1-00008y-00 for ; Thu, 24 Apr 2003 09:38:07 +0200 Original-Lines: 40 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org Mail-Copies-To: never User-Agent: Gnus/5.090019 (Oort Gnus v0.19) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:Dhc6RpDXVcIBa72QPG42kQblzvQ= X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1b5 Precedence: list List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:13417 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:13417 David Abrahams writes: > "Eli Zaretskii" writes: > >> Then how about profiling the lengthy operation? See the instructions >> in elp.el for more details. > > OK, the results are posted here: > > http://users.rcn.com/abrahams/elp/ > > I enabled profiling for gnus-*, imap-*, and nnimap-*. Okay, it seems in both cases the function that takes long is imap-wait-for-tag. But in XEmacs it's much faster. Could you do the following? M-x find-function RET imap-wait-for-tag RET C-n C-n (move down a bit, not important how much) M-x edebug-defun RET Now invoke the same operation again that you invoked for the profiles. Emacs should show you the imap.el buffer with an arrow indicating the current line. Then you can use SPC to step through. I'm guessing that the long delay will be in the call to accept-process-output, and that this delay will be shorter in XEmacs than in Emacs. If that's really the case, then, indeed, it's the subprocess and network I/O operations that need to be tweaked. Hm. I browsed the C source but didn't see anything there that's obviously specific to Windows. So I don't really have an idea what to do if my conjecture is right. But this was the first time I ever looked at that code, and I'm no networking wizard, so I'm sure others will have better ideas. -- file-error; Data: (Opening input file no such file or directory ~/.signature)