From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel
Subject: Re: Profiling font-lock in xemacs
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 02:41:06 -0600 (MDT)
Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org
Message-ID: <afjrvp$i7b$2@main.gmane.org>
References: <F102hm4mRK4dGDNhxKL00000226@hotmail.com>
Reply-To: rms@gnu.org
NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org
X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1025340217 18667 127.0.0.1 (29 Jun 2002 08:43:37 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 08:43:37 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: monnier+gnu/emacs@rum.cs.yale.edu, ben@666.com, bws@deepcopy.org,
   xemacs-design@xemacs.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org
Return-path: <emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org>
Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244])
	by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian))
	id 17ODpQ-0004qy-00
	for <emacs-devel@main.gmane.org>; Sat, 29 Jun 2002 10:43:36 +0200
Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164])
	by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian))
	id 17ODsv-0007eL-00
	for <emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org>; Sat, 29 Jun 2002 10:47:13 +0200
Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org)
	by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian))
	id 17ODoG-0001kL-00; Sat, 29 Jun 2002 04:42:24 -0400
Original-Received: from pele.santafe.edu ([192.12.12.119])
	by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian))
	id 17ODn6-0007HS-00; Sat, 29 Jun 2002 04:41:12 -0400
Original-Received: from santafe.santafe.edu (santafe [192.12.12.2])
	by pele.santafe.edu (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g5T8f6B03110;
	Sat, 29 Jun 2002 02:41:06 -0600 (MDT)
Original-Received: (from rms@localhost)
	by santafe.santafe.edu (8.10.2+Sun/8.9.3) id g5T8f6K06095;
	Sat, 29 Jun 2002 02:41:06 -0600 (MDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: santafe.santafe.edu: rms set sender to rms@santafe using -f
Original-To: ben_wing@hotmail.com
In-Reply-To: <F102hm4mRK4dGDNhxKL00000226@hotmail.com> (ben_wing@hotmail.com)
Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org
X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-devel@gnu.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: Emacs development discussions. <emacs-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mail.gnu.org/pipermail/emacs-devel/>
Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:5256
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:5256

It would be better not to have a delay of even .25 second in handling
C-g.  It ought to respond crisply.

If the delay were made smaller, eventually it would be insignificant.
I don't know at what point that is reached.

Currently on some systems C-g handling can involve a delay of up to 1
second, the wait for "polling for input".  That's because when it was
implemented there was no better facility to use than `alarm'.
Nowadays I gather there is one; we should change the polling interval
to something shorter than a second.