From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: bogossian@mail.com Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs 23, so slow to refresh on Windows Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 11:40:03 -0400 Message-ID: <8CCC4B784B5F92E-1594-41D0@web-mmc-d04.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CCC3DAB0774A32-16F0-1536@web-mmc-d09.sysops.aol.com> <8CCC4332DEEAEEC-16F0-3DA0@web-mmc-d09.sysops.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1274198594 4717 80.91.229.12 (18 May 2010 16:03:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 16:03:14 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: lekktu@gmail.com Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue May 18 18:03:12 2010 connect(): No such file or directory Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OEPGB-00018N-Gc for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 18 May 2010 18:03:11 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43435 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OEPEU-0002eE-Ha for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 18 May 2010 12:01:26 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=50720 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OEOzT-0001vy-Gd for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 May 2010 11:46:00 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OEOzN-0006RI-Qp for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 May 2010 11:45:51 -0400 Original-Received: from imr-da04.mx.aol.com ([205.188.105.146]:64650) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OEOzN-0006RD-NM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 May 2010 11:45:49 -0400 Original-Received: from imo-da04.mx.aol.com (imo-da04.mx.aol.com [205.188.169.202]) by imr-da04.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id o4IFjUPa012086; Tue, 18 May 2010 11:45:31 -0400 Original-Received: from bogossian@mail.com by imo-da04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v42.9.) id o.c44.3ebaa629 (37662); Tue, 18 May 2010 11:45:27 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from smtprly-mc02.mx.aol.com (smtprly-mc02.mx.aol.com [64.12.95.98]) by cia-mb07.mx.aol.com (v129.4) with ESMTP id MAILCIAMB074-d3d14bf2b4d389; Tue, 18 May 2010 11:45:26 -0400 Original-Received: from web-mmc-d04 (web-mmc-d04.sim.aol.com [205.188.103.94]) by smtprly-mc02.mx.aol.com (v129.4) with ESMTP id MAILSMTPRLYMC023-d3d14bf2b4d389; Tue, 18 May 2010 11:40:03 -0400 X-MB-Message-Type: User Original-Received: from 82.66.250.190 by web-mmc-d04.sysops.aol.com (205.188.103.94) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Tue, 18 May 2010 11:40:03 -0400 X-AOL-IP: 82.66.250.190 X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI X-Mailer: Mail.com Webmail 31650-STANDARD In-Reply-To: X-AOL-SENDER: bogossian@mail.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 18 May 2010 12:01:02 -0400 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:124896 Archived-At: >Assuming you use continuation lines, and not truncation, does the >speed improve setting `cache-long-line-scans' to t? (Note that the >variable is automatically buffer-local, so be sure to set it in the >appropriate buffer, or use setq-default.) Setting this variable doesn't make a noticeable difference. For instance, scrolling through a 200k csv file made of 200 lines of=20 1000 characters each, feels just as choppy whether the cache is enabled or=20 not. >Yes, I think so. You can see the backend used for a font by moving the >cursor over a character in that font and doing "C-u C-x =3D". The font >information will start with gdi: or uniscribe: As expected the gdi backend is used: character: D (68, #o104, #x44) preferred charset: ascii (ASCII (ISO646 IRV)) code point: 0x44 syntax: w which means: word category: .:Base, a:ASCII, l:Latin, r:Roman buffer code: #x44 file code: #x44 (encoded by coding system undecided-dos) display: by this font (glyph code) gdi:-raster-6X13-normal-normal-normal-*-13-*-*-*-c-*-iso8859-1=20 (#x44) Character code properties: customize what to show name: LATIN CAPITAL LETTER D general-category: Lu (Letter, Uppercase) BTW, 6x13 is not the only font for which I noticed these extremely bad performances. The bitmap version of the courier font (which I think is installed by default with Windows XP) exhibits the same slowdown. So it should be easy for you to reproduce the problem using this font. character: D (68, #o104, #x44) preferred charset: ascii (ASCII (ISO646 IRV)) code point: 0x44 syntax: w which means: word category: .:Base, a:ASCII, l:Latin, r:Roman buffer code: #x44 file code: #x44 (encoded by coding system undecided-dos) display: by this font (glyph code) =20 gdi:-raster-Courier-normal-normal-normal-mono-13-*-*-*-c-*-iso8859-1=20 (#x44) Character code properties: customize what to show name: LATIN CAPITAL LETTER D general-category: Lu (Letter, Uppercase)