From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [Emacs-diffs] master 5c9304e: Disable some display optimizations when frames need redisplay Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2015 18:46:20 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20150930193450.11644.62040@vcs.savannah.gnu.org> <831tdd75i3.fsf@gnu.org> <83eghd5ff2.fsf@gnu.org> <83vbap3qxb.fsf@gnu.org> <83r3lc4du9.fsf@gnu.org> <83mvvz0xkh.fsf@gnu.org> <83bncdz20p.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1444085215 17268 80.91.229.3 (5 Oct 2015 22:46:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 22:46:55 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Oct 06 00:46:46 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZjEWq-0004Cx-UJ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 06 Oct 2015 00:46:45 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:48059 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZjEWq-0001fc-4F for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 05 Oct 2015 18:46:44 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59583) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZjEWb-0001dT-9c for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Oct 2015 18:46:30 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZjEWZ-0007Hq-CT for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Oct 2015 18:46:28 -0400 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.181]:18233) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZjEWV-0007Gm-IN; Mon, 05 Oct 2015 18:46:23 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0CVDQA731xV/3aQs2tcgxCEAsEVh0sEAgKBPDsSAQEBAQEBAYEKQQWDXQEBAwFWIwULCzQSFBgNJIg3CM8jAQEBAQYBAQEBHos6hQUHhC0BBLUEI4IKHBWBWSKCeAEBAQ X-IPAS-Result: A0CVDQA731xV/3aQs2tcgxCEAsEVh0sEAgKBPDsSAQEBAQEBAYEKQQWDXQEBAwFWIwULCzQSFBgNJIg3CM8jAQEBAQYBAQEBHos6hQUHhC0BBLUEI4IKHBWBWSKCeAEBAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,465,1427774400"; d="scan'208";a="167623058" Original-Received: from 107-179-144-118.cpe.teksavvy.com (HELO fmsmemgm.homelinux.net) ([107.179.144.118]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 05 Oct 2015 18:46:21 -0400 Original-Received: by fmsmemgm.homelinux.net (Postfix, from userid 20848) id B9CDDAE12C; Mon, 5 Oct 2015 18:46:20 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <83bncdz20p.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Mon, 05 Oct 2015 19:57:42 +0300") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 206.248.154.181 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:190982 Archived-At: >> Fundamentally, the only redisplay flags needed are the window ones. >> The frame and buffer's redisplay flags could be dispensed with, at the >> cost of making [bf]set_redisplay more expensive since they'd have to >> loop through all the windows of that frame/buffer. > Yes, I agree. But is that justified? I did not make any measurements, I only went with my intuition. > At least for the frame's flag, a test for each window of the frame's > window tree has the same cost as setting the window-specific flag in > fset_redisplay. Right. Tho we loop through all the frame's windows in the redisplay anyway (IOW, I reused pre-existing loops). > However, the test is made only once per redisplay cycle, whereas the > setting could be done several times, depending on what Lisp is being > run. Right? I think for fset_frame either way would work about as well: it should be relatively rarely used anyway. OTOH for bset_redisplay, I expect that the cost of finding all the buffer's windows would be clearly too costly. Stefan