From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: chad Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Mac OS-compatible ports Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2012 17:28:55 -0800 Message-ID: References: <9E637EAB-A0C5-421B-9CCA-71C41442AF52@gmail.com> <87ipl7zaea.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87sjkbib14.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87d3baui4b.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87mxacqlg4.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87fwg3pfy4.fsf@lifelogs.com> <8739c2dscy.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87ehvkdgfr.fsf_-_@lifelogs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1325986147 5869 80.91.229.12 (8 Jan 2012 01:29:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2012 01:29:07 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Emacs developers To: Dimitri Fontaine Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Jan 08 02:29:03 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RjhZH-0002yg-1p for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 08 Jan 2012 02:29:03 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:35996 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RjhZG-0001SC-Gk for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 07 Jan 2012 20:29:02 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:50211) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RjhZE-0001S7-75 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 07 Jan 2012 20:29:01 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RjhZD-0006H9-3B for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 07 Jan 2012 20:29:00 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-iy0-f169.google.com ([209.85.210.169]:58655) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RjhZC-0006H3-Ri for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 07 Jan 2012 20:28:58 -0500 Original-Received: by iacb35 with SMTP id b35so5598500iac.0 for ; Sat, 07 Jan 2012 17:28:58 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=HCyvKD2zVaYZywlwkE4HlsDdtQz1hF2bPOQySmhO4SE=; b=t1KBzDfqgmyYRE3f+HLdKdh+955tvQD15AhXjXgfV311I9ggaG+ngRhx9H0pKxm3le exS9zfJN55gs6yAyAW3mwNEA68v2P0o86CcglowCS7Z4Cl2bkA2SBr7hjL45K+n0YTfI bphDlHHjWPyRwSTLi0bNggT66abjbb/TlZJ5o= Original-Received: by 10.50.222.233 with SMTP id qp9mr3928079igc.1.1325986138270; Sat, 07 Jan 2012 17:28:58 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from [10.0.1.3] (c-98-247-148-125.hsd1.wa.comcast.net. [98.247.148.125]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id va6sm39878716igc.6.2012.01.07.17.28.56 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 07 Jan 2012 17:28:57 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-Received-From: 209.85.210.169 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:147469 Archived-At: On Jan 7, 2012, at 5:09 AM, Dimitri Fontaine wrote: >=20 > With Emacs24 and gnus and flyspell, on macosx, Emacs gets slower and > slower to the point that if I want to edit medium to large size C = files > (more than 6k lines, say) I need to restart Emacs. >=20 > I've been told flyspell usage is what makes emacs slower and slower on > this system but didn't have anytime to spend on that yet. It would be > awesome to see the problem fixed though :) >=20 > That's the only problem I have here and basically =93I live in Emacs=94.= I don't see this problem with flyspell (which I use constantly), but I = don't use gnus, and I rarely edit C code anymore. Would you be willing = to test without one of those three (flyspell, gnus, CC-mode) for a short = bit? There are some known issues that make subprocesses slow (usually hits = flyspell, although it's still usually fast enough in my experience), and = there have been several discussions about slowness in CC-mode due to = unusual cases lately. Thanks, *Chad=