From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: cc-mode fontification feels random Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2021 18:47:37 +0000 Message-ID: References: <83k0n2cjg5.fsf@gnu.org> <83im2lbqmv.fsf@gnu.org> <179f6e4fa40.2816.cc5b3318d7e9908e2c46732289705cb0@dancol.org> <83fsxpbpn9.fsf@gnu.org> <83k0n09tkp.fsf@gnu.org> <83eed89s73.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="20640"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: rudalics@gmx.at, Daniel Colascione , emacs-devel@gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, rms@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Jun 11 20:48:17 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lrmCW-000578-VZ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 11 Jun 2021 20:48:16 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:58024 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lrmCU-00014X-Ui for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 11 Jun 2021 14:48:14 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:53114) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lrmBy-0000PB-2E for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Jun 2021 14:47:42 -0400 Original-Received: from colin.muc.de ([193.149.48.1]:13536 helo=mail.muc.de) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lrmBv-00013b-GL for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Jun 2021 14:47:41 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail 4737 invoked by uid 3782); 11 Jun 2021 18:47:37 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (p4fe15c6b.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [79.225.92.107]) (using STARTTLS) by colin.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Fri, 11 Jun 2021 20:47:37 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 7011 invoked by uid 1000); 11 Jun 2021 18:47:37 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <83eed89s73.fsf@gnu.org> X-Submission-Agent: TMDA/1.3.x (Ph3nix) X-Primary-Address: acm@muc.de Received-SPF: pass client-ip=193.149.48.1; envelope-from=acm@muc.de; helo=mail.muc.de X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:270715 Archived-At: Hello, Eli. On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 21:22:56 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Cc: rudalics@gmx.at, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, rms@gnu.org, > > emacs-devel@gnu.org > > From: Daniel Colascione > > Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2021 11:02:34 -0700 > > >> 0.026s, 0.025s, 0.026s, 0.078s, 0.026s, 0.027s. > > >> That is, with the exception of the fourth timing, the scroll operation > > >> takes a little over 1/40 second. > > >> This is in an Emacs-28 compiled with default optimisation, on a 4 > > >> year-old first generation Ryzen machine. > > >> For me personally, this scrolling speed, in conjunction with > > >> fast-but-imprecise-scrolling, is acceptable. I also accept there are > > >> people with slower machines. > > > I suggest to compare these times with Emacs 23 to see how we > > > regressed. > > Regression is acceptable in exchange for correctness so long as absolute > > performance is adequate. We're not using 80486s anymore. > Here are my times using an optimized build of Emacs 27.2 on a 3.4GHz > Core i7 box: How many buffer lines were in your window? > 0.015625 > 0.03125 > 0.015625 > 0.046875 > 0.09375 > 0.0625 > 0.015625 > 0.03125 > 0.015625 > 0.03125 > 0.015625 > 0.03125 > You consider this to be adequate performance for a single > window-scroll? (I don't have an optimized build of Emacs 28, but > there's no reason to believe it is faster; quite the opposite.) What does adequate mean? With those timings, the font-locking would keep up with an auto-repeated C-v at around 30 repetitions per second. [ .... ] > We can stick our heads in the sand as much as we want, but facts are > stubborn things. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).