From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Gregory Heytings via "Emacs development discussions." Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Redisplay slower in Emacs 28 than Emacs 27 Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2020 21:49:21 +0000 Message-ID: References: <877dptiro7.fsf@gnus.org> <87pn3lhcdd.fsf@gnus.org> <878sa9hbe2.fsf@gnus.org> <877dptfvae.fsf@gnus.org> <83czzl8qwu.fsf@gnu.org> <87sg8h78s8.fsf@gnus.org> <87h7ox71xc.fsf@gnus.org> Reply-To: Gregory Heytings Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="35940"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Alpine 2.22 (NEB 394 2020-01-19) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Lars Ingebrigtsen Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Dec 07 22:51:37 2020 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 1kmOPw-0009EU-Ru for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 07 Dec 2020 22:51:36 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:58736 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kmOPv-0007bm-SY for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 07 Dec 2020 16:51:35 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:57058) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kmONw-0006MY-Ni for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 07 Dec 2020 16:49:32 -0500 Original-Received: from mx.sdf.org ([205.166.94.24]:52453) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kmONt-0003Mv-Qc; Mon, 07 Dec 2020 16:49:32 -0500 Original-Received: from sdf.org (IDENT:ghe@faeroes.freeshell.org [205.166.94.9]) by mx.sdf.org (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPS id 0B7LnOUk023965 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256 bits) verified NO); Mon, 7 Dec 2020 21:49:24 GMT Original-Received: (from ghe@localhost) by sdf.org (8.15.2/8.12.8/Submit) id 0B7Lo00Y007553; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 21:50:00 GMT In-Reply-To: <87h7ox71xc.fsf@gnus.org> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=205.166.94.24; envelope-from=ghe@sdf.org; helo=mx.sdf.org 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_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham 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:260524 Archived-At: >> With equal_lists 18.7s, with !equal_lists 16.1s. >> >> This difference is not due to an obscure compiler bug, the timings >> above are with GCC 10, but the timings with Clang 9 are similar: with >> equal_lists 19.0s, with !equal_lists 16.6s. > > Very interesting. Using the image cache for small images slows Emacs > down? Or is there a bug in equal_lists? > > Just to make 100% sure -- could you re-run the benchmark with something > like the following as the function: > > static struct image * > search_image_cache (struct frame *f, Lisp_Object spec, EMACS_UINT hash, > unsigned long foreground, unsigned long background, > bool ignore_colors) > { > return NULL; > } > Sure. As I just wrote to Alan, I changed "if (!c) return NULL;" into "return NULL;", and the result is: 18.6s, similar to the equal_lists case. As always, it's the average of ten runs.