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: Time to merge scratch/correct-warning-pos into master, perhaps? Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2022 18:09:30 +0000 Message-ID: References: <83leyq3kfk.fsf@gnu.org> <83a6f631k3.fsf@gnu.org> <838ruq2z5t.fsf@gnu.org> <83v8xt20db.fsf@gnu.org> <83ee4gyzrh.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="10036"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: larsi@gnus.org, mattiase@acm.org, gregory@heytings.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Feb 06 19:11:11 2022 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 1nGm0F-0002T2-8C for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 06 Feb 2022 19:11:11 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57724 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nGm0E-0000cF-4D for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 06 Feb 2022 13:11:10 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:41740) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nGlyl-0008A4-F1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Feb 2022 13:09:39 -0500 Original-Received: from colin.muc.de ([193.149.48.1]:45914 helo=mail.muc.de) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nGlyj-0002Kv-By for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Feb 2022 13:09:39 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail 3175 invoked by uid 3782); 6 Feb 2022 18:09:35 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (p2e5d56dd.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [46.93.86.221]) (using STARTTLS) by colin.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Sun, 06 Feb 2022 19:09:34 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 28832 invoked by uid 1000); 6 Feb 2022 18:09:30 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <83ee4gyzrh.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, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham 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:285986 Archived-At: Hello, Eli. On Sun, Feb 06, 2022 at 13:56:34 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2022 11:50:02 +0000 > > Cc: gregory@heytings.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, mattiase@acm.org, > > larsi@gnus.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org > > From: Alan Mackenzie > > > So that would mean the slowdown of EQ is due to the cases where the > > > objects are not-EQ? > > Yes. > > > Where are the numbers that show how much slower is the current EQ, for > > > the case of EQ and not-EQ objects? > > We don't have any such numbers. Is it even possible to measure this? On > > earlier processors, we could have just counted up processor cycles used > > for each instruction, but not any more. > Yes, it's possible: use perf. I've installed the user side part of perf on my machine. On reading the tutorial (which is very difficult), it seems perf acts like a super accurate benchmarking program, which measures program runs. Maybe I misunderstand what you meant - but I can't see how perf is able to report the cycles, etc., taken by a single execution of an instance of EQ. What exactly do we want to measure, here? -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).