From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Lars Ingebrigtsen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Pixel-based display functions Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2015 20:57:05 +1100 Message-ID: <874mqycadq.fsf@building.gnus.org> References: <83lhkhiq8t.fsf@gnu.org> <54CE54A3.1020707@gmx.at> <838ughilmo.fsf@gnu.org> <54CE6BD2.8000402@gmx.at> <8361bliin0.fsf@gnu.org> <83386piiby.fsf@gnu.org> <87oap9yoti.fsf@building.gnus.org> <874mqzvnwo.fsf@building.gnus.org> <83h9uzeb4a.fsf@gnu.org> <87bnl7jrr7.fsf@building.gnus.org> <831tm3dt8u.fsf@gnu.org> <87k2zvgj4d.fsf@building.gnus.org> <83siejcahb.fsf@gnu.org> <87bnl7gh7x.fsf@building.gnus.org> <87zj8qcqjv.fsf@building.gnus.org> <87r3u2cn46.fsf@building.gnus.org> <838ugacfd3.fsf@gnu.org> <87fvaiccjk.fsf@building.gnus.org> <83zj8qawhh.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1423303113 4124 80.91.229.3 (7 Feb 2015 09:58:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2015 09:58:33 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Feb 07 10:58:33 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YK29o-00039k-QB for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2015 10:58:32 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51949 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YK29o-0008NI-6V for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2015 04:58:32 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56883) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YK29d-0008ND-DU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2015 04:58:22 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YK29c-0005LD-Ay for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2015 04:58:21 -0500 Original-Received: from smtp.syd.comcen.com.au ([203.23.236.77]:4044) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YK29X-0005K0-Eo; Sat, 07 Feb 2015 04:58:15 -0500 Original-Received: from building.gnus.org ([27.96.197.126]) by smtp.syd.comcen.com.au (8.13.4/8.12.9) with ESMTP id t179v9us087690; Sat, 7 Feb 2015 20:57:10 +1100 (EST) In-Reply-To: <83zj8qawhh.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sat, 07 Feb 2015 11:42:34 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.130012 (Ma Gnus v0.12) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-comcen-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-comcen-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-comcen-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=0.118, required 4, AWL 0.03, BAYES_20 -0.01, RDNS_NONE 0.10) X-comcen-MailScanner-From: larsi@gnus.org X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 203.23.236.77 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:182577 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: > It looks like your previous timings, viz. > >> shr-insert-document 1 5.11859327 5.11859327 >> shr-pixel-buffer-width 1940 1.8345742170 0.0009456568 >> shr-fold-lines 1579 1.7859513240 0.0011310648 >> shr-vertical-motion 2625 1.7517520130 0.0006673341 > > and > >> (benchmark-run 5000 (vertical-motion (cons (/ 700 (frame-char-width)) 0))) >> => (0.942894006 2 0.05716983599999992) > > were better, at least as far as vertical-motion was concerned. What > happened that caused almost twofold degradation in speed of > shr-vertical-motion? And why does a single call to vertical-motion > take ~0.2 msec, while a single call to shr-vertical-motion takes 1.7 > msec, more than 8 times more? My guess would be the extra function call overhead, along with the ELP instrumentation overhead. ELP results are never all that precise, in my opinion, but they're useful to give you a general overview of where time is spent, since it adds about the same overhead to all functions. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocelot >> >> The torture test part of the page isn't shown by default. It's the bit >> at the end that says "Extant Carnivora species [Show]". > > I don't see "Extant Carnivora species [Show]", I see "Extant Carnivora > species" with "Carnivora" a link to > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivora. Is that what you meant? (In > what browser do you see what you described? I tried eww and Forefox, > and both show what I described.) In my Firefox, it's shown as "Extant Carnivora species [Show]". Do you have Javascript switched on or something? It's a JS table toggle or something. > Anyway, which part of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivora is the > torture part? the "Phylogenetic tree" part? It's not that page, it on the Ocelot page. In eww, it's the large table that starts with "Extant Carnivora species" in the heading. -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no/