From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=93scar_Fuentes?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Two strange messages while building Emacs on MS-Windows Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 12:11:22 +0100 Message-ID: <87d2yi17s5.fsf@wanadoo.es> References: <83mwxpmtp6.fsf@gnu.org> <83fw3hm0nn.fsf@gnu.org> <83k3srdh3d.fsf@gnu.org> <878v97xfbi.fsf@wanadoo.es> <83boe3cb2e.fsf@gnu.org> <874njvxbrs.fsf@wanadoo.es> <837goqdgaw.fsf@gnu.org> <87zk1mx2ua.fsf@wanadoo.es> <83624acufq.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1355137912 9384 80.91.229.3 (10 Dec 2012 11:11:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 11:11:52 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Dec 10 12:12:06 2012 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 1Ti1HI-0002ss-Jr for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 12:12:04 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:45721 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ti1H5-0004Nr-TU for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 06:11:51 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:56476) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ti1Gz-0004NS-Qm for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 06:11:49 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ti1Gr-0005Vv-S6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 06:11:45 -0500 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:51542) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ti1Gr-0005Vl-LT for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 06:11:37 -0500 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ti1H0-0002Z7-9o for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 12:11:46 +0100 Original-Received: from 126.red-88-13-105.dynamicip.rima-tde.net ([88.13.105.126]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 12:11:46 +0100 Original-Received: from ofv by 126.red-88-13-105.dynamicip.rima-tde.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 10 Dec 2012 12:11:46 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 31 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 126.red-88-13-105.dynamicip.rima-tde.net User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:tDinxxB9zVOPZPNsVzUbz2ri7aA= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 80.91.229.3 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:155420 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: > How did you time things on Windows? >From a MSYS bash shell: time Your reports motivated me to do more research. Booted again the machine with the XP partition with the intention of timing with other methods. The first try was with MSYS again, just a sanity check, and this is the result for the second and successive runs: time /c/apps/emacs/bin/emacs --batch --eval '(message "Hello")' 0.047 s I can only speculate about what happened. That XP partition was used by the first time on about two years for the timings I posted the first time you asked for data. This last time I booted XP it was idle for several minutes before I ran the tests. Maybe the first time Windows Update or other background programs were doing their chores, although Task Manager didn't show significant activity. The timings I originally posted seemed right because they were about 10% better than the ones I get on the virtualized XP machine I use for building Emacs. Now I'm surprised to see how big the performance penalty virtualization imposes on some tasks. (Now I recall that long time ago I did quite a bit of experimentation and observed that the overhead is less if you assign just one CPU to the virtual machine.)