From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Redisplay problems? Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 14:15:00 -0400 Message-ID: References: <532ABA60.7000003@gmx.at> <83siqc7n87.fsf@gnu.org> <83a9ck6lzf.fsf@gnu.org> <83eh1v5y53.fsf@gnu.org> <83y5024r1w.fsf@gnu.org> <83ior6489a.fsf@gnu.org> <834n2q43os.fsf@gnu.org> <83vbv62gr7.fsf@gnu.org> <83txao1c8n.fsf@gnu.org> <877g7kxai3.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <83ob0v1qkj.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1395684920 1602 80.91.229.3 (24 Mar 2014 18:15:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 18:15:20 +0000 (UTC) Cc: David Kastrup , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Mar 24 19:15:27 2014 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 1WS9P8-0005DW-LP for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 19:15:22 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37868 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WS9P7-00029u-Tm for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 14:15:21 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39421) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WS9Oy-0001rf-3W for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 14:15:19 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WS9Oo-0006n9-Lk for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 14:15:12 -0400 Original-Received: from chene.dit.umontreal.ca ([132.204.246.20]:52732) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WS9Oo-0006kx-HU; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 14:15:02 -0400 Original-Received: from pastel.home (lechon.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.242]) by chene.dit.umontreal.ca (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id s2OIFJpG017442; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 14:15:19 -0400 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 9E5206012F; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 14:15:00 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <83ob0v1qkj.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Mon, 24 Mar 2014 18:58:36 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) X-NAI-Spam-Flag: NO X-NAI-Spam-Threshold: 5 X-NAI-Spam-Score: 0 X-NAI-Spam-Rules: 1 Rules triggered RV4891=0 X-NAI-Spam-Version: 2.3.0.9362 : core <4891> : inlines <638> : streams <1143955> : uri <1708667> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 132.204.246.20 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:170924 Archived-At: > OTOH, when we need to deiconify a frame, or expose a large portion of > it, I see no space for significant optimizations anyway. Redisplay > optimizations are about redrawing as small portions of the frame as > possible. But in the case in point, we basically need to redraw the > entire frame -- how much can you win here anyway? Of course, the window-system may elect to do some of this redraw on its own by keeping a copy of the frame's last content (under X11 the corresponding feature is called "BackingStore"). In that case we don't need to redraw the entire frame. We may often not need to redraw anything at all. IIRC this "BackingStore" option is typically disabled nowadays in X11, so we shouldn't pay too much attention to it. But I'm not sure how compositing window-managers behave in this respect, since they kind of "naturally" have a kinf of backing-store. IOW, if we want to be serious about this discussion, we should first get some real data from w32, Gnome, and ns cases to see if in practice, a deiconifiy is almost always followed by an "expose" of the frame, or not. Stefan