From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: bug-reference-prog-mode slows down CC Mode's scrolling by ~7% Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2021 12:39:09 -0400 Message-ID: References: <83a6kuyysv.fsf@gnu.org> <837dfwyird.fsf@gnu.org> <83tuj0ux6y.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="14684"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: acm@muc.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Sep 04 18:42:56 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 1mMYkp-0003az-2b for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 04 Sep 2021 18:42:55 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:46766 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mMYkn-0006hU-4i for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 04 Sep 2021 12:42:53 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:54926) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mMYhJ-0001hW-GE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 04 Sep 2021 12:39:17 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:45605) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mMYhG-0002L5-Qc; Sat, 04 Sep 2021 12:39:16 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 74D3B4405BB; Sat, 4 Sep 2021 12:39:12 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 237CB4405A1; Sat, 4 Sep 2021 12:39:11 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1630773551; bh=opC+5sPYO0c7C2t+PpIS2Ab3l/z8v8Eg9U1vjHTKtUo=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=U4yYxs+AcKIdAkrIcUi+VxBFWmd2UMfxK2R0mFWzGhdfSjFiu2mehqDYfagYJ9iKi IpfgxdxJ0BM01zB5LsvrKQuzKu0cU7bWczXhsBPVIO8FUsjUnQB2oqGYLQJq5YXi21 FUoupc2DLxPpnsRKBonC4Z921oLpul5kAKYMF6LLXhBGy73NbsZO5QjDAnkApMv13k KQS9UC5W+OT85X+rLjJHfiq55o62JEfR4xyfMLosrWb0uEIN/acv0O2ZBCXPKmHNiv MO3yiwDUSgsFn/fqqLlvQzyz2cdz5pcERogQMxE7ryo0xqlkM7QaWGfUNoLzM5WpPV l0h05YvQfCU0Q== Original-Received: from milanesa (unknown [104.247.244.135]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DC253120315; Sat, 4 Sep 2021 12:39:10 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <83tuj0ux6y.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sat, 04 Sep 2021 19:23:17 +0300") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=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:273932 Archived-At: > To see the "waste" in single-windowful scrolls, we need a suitable > benchmark, which measures the time of each scroll separately. It > would probably make sense to make it generate a random value of point, > then measure the time it takes to go there and display. Maybe a good way to see the waste is to measure the time for the initial font-lock in an outline-mode buffer where the screen is filled with single-line headers and everything else is hidden: a whole chunk will be fontified for each line, so with a single 40-line screen you can expect to fontify 40 chunks (unless the hidden text between lines is smaller than the chunk size, of course). Stefan PS: For the record, I was made aware of this case back in the days of lazy-lock because lazy-lock didn't know how to skip invisible text (it just fontified everything between window-start and window-end), so in some cases it would end up fontifying the whole buffer.