From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: emacs rendering comparisson between emacs23 and emacs26.3 Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2020 15:03:14 -0400 Message-ID: References: <834ku43c61.fsf@gnu.org> <83k12zz6ds.fsf@gnu.org> <054393f3-3873-ab6e-b325-0eca354d8838@gmx.at> <20200403174757.GA8266@ACM> <20200404104553.GA5329@ACM> <07fe3b69-3ab2-3173-0696-cb17809e2b91@gmx.at> <83blo7v68b.fsf@gnu.org> <1845d7aa-9ae4-3d95-6a30-c7b1d8d8adec@gmx.at> <83a73qt6zs.fsf@gnu.org> <97c4254e-ff43-8402-3645-f713c408c245@gmx.at> <83y2r9syby.fsf@gnu.org> <83tv1xsset.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="93158"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, rudalics@gmx.at, rrandresf@gmail.com, acm@muc.de, Eli Zaretskii To: Dmitry Gutov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Apr 05 21:03:57 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 1jLAYm-000O8t-R7 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 05 Apr 2020 21:03:56 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50982 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jLAYl-00022k-Rb for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 05 Apr 2020 15:03:55 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:37425) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jLAYE-0001W2-UC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 05 Apr 2020 15:03:24 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jLAYD-0003LC-Or for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 05 Apr 2020 15:03:22 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:35930) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jLAYB-0003JW-31; Sun, 05 Apr 2020 15:03:19 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2C25844FC96; Sun, 5 Apr 2020 15:03:18 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C661344FC90; Sun, 5 Apr 2020 15:03:16 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1586113396; bh=YGunfW7N6IhQSUpJoU0QM6CGRDgkN+VuRBZ9QHZSflM=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=XvvPS5JkUBw7pDSv1PK/WNaoW0QLSSwcwEzabQrIwdHGE4wHGr7thtOvamObNMgUL 6dwi9HnmpvNICXNrFuqmO/P/c9V0e5F3amzzoysP8PbxWHkhSr+z44lsB5hXOK0sU3 qKvbIvt3UX2rPfOX5fZ/jq5vYLRSxYBcFa0JKW5v5OhfgDV95DH5JGQ33fqkpIpfky fC4VOtfBHMVtlWGEhzoXbCmHhRElgzRy2+BoUvunql3WfDu3W5Qivr0d8/Kuj9qFCb B/ljqsACg8zHPNP8U5umGfl89DYbxxuN7m08+0ulbF9Y810IR7TVJnHqsP4OfmtY8w 3TICC4KTfHARQ== Original-Received: from alfajor (unknown [104.247.241.114]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 348AA12060B; Sun, 5 Apr 2020 15:03:16 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Dmitry Gutov's message of "Sun, 5 Apr 2020 21:55:39 +0300") X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 132.204.25.50 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:246481 Archived-At: > What's the difference between redisplay being slow and it being unable to > "keep up"? I don't understand, sorry. If there's already input waiting (because the next event already arrived) at the start of redisplay, then redisplay is short-circuited. Typically, in an auto-repeat circumstance, this will either not happen or happen on a whole batch of repetition. So we say "can't keep up" because processing of one command (including redisplay) takes more time than the interval until the next command. > And in this case, IIUC, jit-lock is part of redisplay. Yes, it often is when scrolling. Stefan