From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Wayne Harris via "Emacs development discussions." Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: on a buffer performance test on Windows GNU EMACS 28, 27, 26 and 24 Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 00:35:50 -0300 Message-ID: <86h7sr75yh.fsf@protonmail.com> Reply-To: Wayne Harris Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="15381"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Cancel-Lock: sha1:lCFY5vFX4iJoPiDya6Uho6AfRoA= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Aug 26 02:55:46 2020 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 1kAjj8-0003vp-J8 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 02:55:46 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:48920 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kAjj7-0003wv-Kh for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 20:55:45 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:58636) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kAjiW-0003Ux-Eu for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 20:55:08 -0400 Original-Received: from static.214.254.202.116.clients.your-server.de ([116.202.254.214]:43284 helo=ciao.gmane.io) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kAjiU-0005Ki-OG for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Aug 2020 20:55:08 -0400 Original-Received: from list by ciao.gmane.io with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kAjiQ-0003Cg-7K for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 26 Aug 2020 02:55:02 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Received-SPF: pass client-ip=116.202.254.214; envelope-from=ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; helo=ciao.gmane.io X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/08/25 20:55:02 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Spam_score_int: -3 X-Spam_score: -0.4 X-Spam_bar: / X-Spam_report: (-0.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_12_24=1.049, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.248, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.248, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 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:254235 Archived-At: On Windows, I said M-x run-python, then said for i in range(100000): print(i) on both GNU EMACS 28, 27, 26 and GNU EMACS 24. It turns out GNU EMACS 24 is the slowest. There doesn't seem to be a difference between 28 and 27, but 26 is clearly slower too. I timed the speed of the buffer to scroll up. I used my own phone's stop watch. I started out the slow one first, which was EMACS 24, only after it was running I started the clock, then I started GNU EMACS 28's code. The result was GNU EMACS 28 finishes in less than 8.00 seconds. GNU EMACS 24 finishes after 24.44 seconds. I didn't time 27 and 26, but I couldn't tell any difference between 28 and 27. And 26 was slower than 27 and 28. What is the reason for the difference? Thanks! GNU Emacs 24.3.1 (i386-mingw-nt6.2.9200) of 2013-03-17 on MARVIN GNU Emacs 26.3 (build 1, x86_64-w64-mingw32) of 2019-08-29 GNU Emacs 27.1 (build 1, x86_64-w64-mingw32) of 2020-08-21 GNU Emacs 28.0.50 (build 1, i686-w64-mingw32) of 2020-07-05