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: Correct byte compiler error/warning positions. The solution! Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2021 19:39:05 +0000 Message-ID: References: <83pmqm16vz.fsf@gnu.org> <8335nh29pt.fsf@gnu.org> <83wnktzxb2.fsf@gnu.org> <83ilwcyc6o.fsf@gnu.org> <8335nfw2pe.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="35680"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Nov 29 20:41:43 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 1mrmX0-00094j-Qz for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 29 Nov 2021 20:41:42 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36478 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mrmWz-0000i1-0B for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 29 Nov 2021 14:41:41 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:39124) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mrmUY-0007qI-PQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Nov 2021 14:39:10 -0500 Original-Received: from colin.muc.de ([193.149.48.1]:25603 helo=mail.muc.de) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mrmUW-0004V1-6x for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Nov 2021 14:39:10 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail 94482 invoked by uid 3782); 29 Nov 2021 19:39:05 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (p4fe15bd7.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [79.225.91.215]) (using STARTTLS) by colin.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Mon, 29 Nov 2021 20:39:05 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 8684 invoked by uid 1000); 29 Nov 2021 19:39:05 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8335nfw2pe.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: 2.1.29 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:280505 Archived-At: Hello, Eli. On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 14:45:01 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2021 11:50:19 +0000 > > From: Alan Mackenzie > > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > > Anyhow, I've committed the current state in the new branch > > scratch/correct-warning-pos. It should build and run OK, although I > > haven't tried it out with native compilation, yet. It is marginally > > slower than master. Maybe we can merge it into master some time for > > Emacs 29. > Please show the benchmark results, so we could know how slower is > this. The source for the benchmarking is: (defun time-scroll-b (&optional arg) ; For use in `benchmark-run'. (condition-case nil (while t (if arg (scroll-down) (scroll-up)) (sit-for 0)) (error nil))) I ran (benchmark-run (time-scroll-b)) five times on both versions of Emacs, using the file src/xdisp.c from the version being tested, and running on a Linux tty. Between each run I did M-<, SPACE, pause ~5 seconds, C-_. On the master branch I got the following timings: * - 1: (20.146470262 435 7.018855274999999) * - 2: (20.6936481 307 6.8447708129999985) * - 3: (20.748953179999997 303 6.931802685000001) * - 4: (20.754181744 303 6.932338166000001) * - 5: (20.746469523000002 304 6.927925281999997) On the scratch/correct-warning-pos branch, I got these: * - 1: (20.200789011 446 7.2819411899999995) * - 2: (20.837616185999998 308 6.967083439000001) * - 3: (20.93961052 305 7.074547531) * - 4: (20.931170864 305 7.0736086979999975) * - 5: (20.853407755 304 7.029190317999998) So, on this test the new branch appears to be around 1%, perhaps a little less, slower than the master branch. It is notable that the first run in each version is different from the others, both in being a little faster, and having far more garbage-collections. I don't know why this is. Maybe Emacs could be marginally sped up by garbage collecting more frequently, but that's speculation. > Thanks. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).