From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stephen Leake Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: How to add pseudo vector types Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2021 10:48:54 -0700 Message-ID: <861r7m8et5.fsf@stephe-leake.org> References: <83h7gw6pyj.fsf@gnu.org> <45EBF16A-C953-42C7-97D1-3A2BFEF7DD01@gmail.com> <83y2a764oy.fsf@gnu.org> <83v95b60fn.fsf@gnu.org> <00DD5BFE-D14E-449A-9319-E7B725DEBFB3@gmail.com> <83r1fz5xr9.fsf@gnu.org> <1AAB1BCC-362B-4249-B785-4E0530E15C60@gmail.com> <83czri67h0.fsf@gnu.org> <46BBFF88-76C3-4818-8805-5437409BEA93@gmail.com> <83wnpq46uk.fsf@gnu.org> <533BD53B-4E85-4E9E-B46A-346A5BBAD0F5@gmail.com> <258CB68D-1CC1-42C8-BDCD-2A8A8099B783@gmail.com> <1a776770-50b7-93cd-6591-c9a5b3a56eb8@gmail.com> <83lf654dhk.fsf@gnu.org> <2524265f-60c7-24f5-b9f4-98447c91acab@gmail.com> <86o8av4olc.fsf@stephe-leake.org> <976cd611-52b3-5280-263e-ab8e3db8a355@gmail.com> <83k0lj4fml.fsf@gnu.org> <86a6mca06b.fsf@stephe-leake.org> <834kck1999.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="29316"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (windows-nt) Cc: cpitclaudel@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Jul 25 19:49:36 2021 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 1m7iFs-0007Ri-1D for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 25 Jul 2021 19:49:36 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44794 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1m7iFq-0002cR-R8 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 25 Jul 2021 13:49:34 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:35680) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1m7iFJ-0001xe-Rf for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 25 Jul 2021 13:49:01 -0400 Original-Received: from gateway21.websitewelcome.com ([192.185.45.191]:18424) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1m7iFH-0001Gu-Nq for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 25 Jul 2021 13:49:01 -0400 Original-Received: from cm14.websitewelcome.com (cm14.websitewelcome.com [100.42.49.7]) by gateway21.websitewelcome.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 723D9400D1C56 for ; Sun, 25 Jul 2021 12:48:56 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: from host2007.hostmonster.com ([67.20.76.71]) by cmsmtp with SMTP id 7iFEm5Arf7sOi7iFEmpnwm; Sun, 25 Jul 2021 12:48:56 -0500 X-Authority-Reason: nr=8 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=stephe-leake.org; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type: MIME-Version:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:Date:References:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender :Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help: List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=3AnmG973F7oBM6VckhmXylI2AWzbJl2p3srGsH0c8Dw=; b=NqHHPIa+YWrVvXQ9wwJX5xur4V 27Bdt58SuJDGiQ2fpifsPOJqK7RqwL4XY746AJcoMRYONkoracsQwPsu4I3BzXIHo/+BH/HGp26PJ OiVQZIe1tGJAG0/WMfX4w9n6e2YAa9sjOJ7bfLA+JTMOL5FB2Wvjy0WTszML6EWKZO8YHeP/hrZCI hCNxFG2GVgcCCMWqYRszJU2CJMft7RmdDjNLNHOt56B4xUm1aDxhOT8gWXUo1YXRV1SUSykwk2tTQ xixD0sd4nuYyaoMLxG+6Ckrhmxq9osIbuQGYyQ98ApORPmWNtTFx4HPd88Njs5q9UhiX3Z5F991Xd GGwc/9iQ==; Original-Received: from [76.77.182.20] (port=57237 helo=Takver4) by host2007.hostmonster.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1m7iFD-000coY-Pm; Sun, 25 Jul 2021 11:48:55 -0600 In-Reply-To: <834kck1999.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sat, 24 Jul 2021 10:06:10 +0300") X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - host2007.hostmonster.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - gnu.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - stephe-leake.org X-BWhitelist: no X-Source-IP: 76.77.182.20 X-Source-L: No X-Exim-ID: 1m7iFD-000coY-Pm X-Source-Sender: (Takver4) [76.77.182.20]:57237 X-Source-Auth: stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org X-Email-Count: 3 X-Source-Cap: c3RlcGhlbGU7c3RlcGhlbGU7aG9zdDIwMDcuaG9zdG1vbnN0ZXIuY29t X-Local-Domain: yes Received-SPF: permerror client-ip=192.185.45.191; envelope-from=stephen_leake@stephe-leake.org; helo=gateway21.websitewelcome.com X-Spam_score_int: -8 X-Spam_score: -0.9 X-Spam_bar: / X-Spam_report: (-0.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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:271617 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: Stephen Leake >> Cc: Cl=C3=A9ment Pit-Claudel , >> emacs-devel@gnu.org >> Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 19:57:32 -0700 >>=20 >> > How much "less"? Close to 1 sec is indeed annoying, but 20 msec or so >> > should be bearable. >> > >> > You seem to assume up front that TS (re)-parsing will take 1 sec, but >> > AFAIK there's no reason to assume such bad performance. >>=20 >> This is for the initial parse, on a large file. No matter how fast the >> parser is, I can give you a file that takes one second to parse, and >> some user will have such a file (the work always expands to consume all >> the resources available). > > That problem is already with us: if I visit xdisp.c in an unoptimized > build of Emacs 28, I wait almost 4 sec for the first window-full to be > displayed. (It's more like 0.5 sec in an optimized build of Emacs > 27.2.) So the real question is how much using TS will _improve_ the > situation. Yes. But here other solutions, like parsing only part of the buffer, offer much better improvement. >> I just got incremental parse working well enough to measure it; in the >> largest Ada file I have (10,000 lines from Eurocontrol): >>=20 >> initial parse: 1.539319 seconds >> re-indent two lines: 0.038999 seconds >>=20 >> 39 milliseconds for re-indent is just slow enough to be noticeable; I st= ill >> have algorithms to convert to be as incremental as possible. > > For comparison, how much does re-indentation of 2 lines take in Emacs > without a parser? I don't think this is a meaningful question, or at least, I don't have an answer. For ada-mode, you'd have to go back to version 4.0, where the indentation was ad-hoc elisp. It was fast enough to be not noticeable. But I switched to a parser because that indentation algorithm was often incorrect, and was very brittle in the face of new features in new Ada language standard releases. Other languages don't use a parser for indentation, so there's no way to compare. Even the AdaCore editor Gnat Studio doesn't use their parser for indentation in Ada; Emacs ada-mode is the only one I know of. I guess you could say it's a trade of indentation quality vs speed. Witness the recent thread about inconsistent fontification in C; a parser would resolve that, but LSP via eglot is probably slower than the current elisp. Indentation is similar, but the quality difference is bigger, at least for Ada. > 39 msec might be noticeable, but it isn't annoying; anything below 50 > msec isn't.=20=20 You are right; in that large Ada file, I don't notice the font-lock delay after typing each character. > Try "C-x TAB" in Emacs on 10-line block of text, and you get more than > that. Depends on the mode; text-mode: 0.4 microseconds. In xdisp.c, indenting it_char_has_category, 47.5 milliseconds. In benchmark.el, indenting benchmark-call; 1.2 milliseconds. The computation here is font-lock due to the text moving in the buffer; in the ada-mode benchmark above, it is computing indent. Calling indent-rigidly, then indent-region (which results in zero net buffer change, so apparently no significant font-lock), I get: xdisp.c: 17.1 ms benchmark.el: 3.6 ms --=20 -- Stephe