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: Fri, 03 Sep 2021 08:19:48 -0400 Message-ID: References: <83a6kuyysv.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="10219"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: Alan Mackenzie , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Sep 03 14:30:25 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 1mM8Ku-0002PA-ES for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 03 Sep 2021 14:30:24 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49012 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mM8Kt-0007pP-7C for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 03 Sep 2021 08:30:23 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:33948) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mM8Av-0002ar-Pv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Sep 2021 08:20:05 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:26949) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mM8At-00060j-7a; Fri, 03 Sep 2021 08:20:04 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 0DD2A806A3; Fri, 3 Sep 2021 08:20:02 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A882D80007; Fri, 3 Sep 2021 08:20:00 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1630671600; bh=TOGm8/Vt7NmEy2lRjLfTCThMJOY7QFocGUleLGsFyQg=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=nF01k+/nthcSndhDxvkEmvKKpDfeLNx0Qx6LS+hUwOblJUT98ySwSLn0xlbK/xGsC wyx5Vu4fS89v8ePT4Rd6NWxEhVTuTj4PsEYhJHymnB+rcyya7ZRXRKaxwx7MCiNLY+ V17Wu6jhHcr120yCotlwrM0EMQgzk+fkcfSDUxFFiZYpqCOJMCuS5jqRo13wJ8qOqm +gkK2M5Opa/UGIIEsfQzt5BdiPxI/o9e5j9XGM3sfbP3YHpDhMMWapqrJBLBMWbee0 Jd2paQ9CG1eQZT9Tx0+CBK9HeU1LIdUO69n7Uypyz+PCS5Ip15qJ84gKYA6wKrDjID bskkhcDJ/xpCw== Original-Received: from milanesa (unknown [104.247.244.135]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B32A01202E4; Fri, 3 Sep 2021 08:19:58 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <83a6kuyysv.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Fri, 03 Sep 2021 09:10:24 +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:273780 Archived-At: > Bother: this is not future-proof, and certainly isn't scalable. If we > are changing the protocol, can we instead come up with a more scalable > change, so that functions won't "fight" in the future who gets to be > "the first"? The change I proposed (I haven't had time to look at Alan's patch yet, but IIUC it does what I proposed) does not change the protocol at all. It just makes jit-lock use the information available in a slightly more efficient way. And while the number of packages using jit-lock tends to grow over time, it's a *very* slow growth, so I think scaling is not a significant concern. Stefan