From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Chong Yidong Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Display slowness that is painful Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2006 23:50:11 -0500 Message-ID: <87r76mqs8s.fsf@stupidchicken.com> References: <87slr5c78p.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <877j8fx43q.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87acdblr9b.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org> <87mzhbd6kv.fsf@stupidchicken.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1138855838 16401 80.91.229.2 (2 Feb 2006 04:50:38 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 04:50:38 +0000 (UTC) Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Feb 02 05:50:36 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F4WQP-0006ET-R7 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 02 Feb 2006 05:50:30 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F4WTV-00082x-ML for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2006 23:53:41 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1F4WTJ-00082i-Lb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2006 23:53:30 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1F4WTH-00082W-Sv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2006 23:53:28 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F4WTH-00082T-HV for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Feb 2006 23:53:27 -0500 Original-Received: from [18.95.6.38] (helo=localhost.localdomain) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1F4WRz-0007vd-V5; Wed, 01 Feb 2006 23:52:08 -0500 Original-Received: by localhost.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 09B781E41D4; Wed, 1 Feb 2006 23:50:11 -0500 (EST) Original-To: rms@gnu.org In-Reply-To: (Richard M. Stallman's message of "Wed, 01 Feb 2006 23:15:03 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:49914 Archived-At: "Richard M. Stallman" writes: > I'm confused. How does it make sense to display characters in \XXX > format instead? Both methods produce gibberish (as one would expect > of a binary file). So we might as well choose the gibberish that > redisplays faster. > > Making it 4 times as fast is not enough. It will still be > intolerable. This ought to be hundreds of times as fast, and I am > sure it can be, with a fairly small change--once someone sees what > is taking the time. Actually, displaying unibyte text according to the language environment is faster than displaying it in octal format -- in the case of the bmp file you provided, the delay is negligible.