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 13:47:09 -0400 Message-ID: References: <83a6kuyysv.fsf@gnu.org> <837dfwyird.fsf@gnu.org> <83tuj0ux6y.fsf@gnu.org> <83pmtouul2.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="37751"; 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 19:48:06 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 1mMZlu-0009g7-4A for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 04 Sep 2021 19:48:06 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:55324 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mMZls-0001hL-Lq for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 04 Sep 2021 13:48:04 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:34100) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mMZl9-00011J-Gy for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 04 Sep 2021 13:47:19 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:19964) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mMZl5-0000Np-LZ; Sat, 04 Sep 2021 13:47:17 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 646BE4405F3; Sat, 4 Sep 2021 13:47:12 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2F96E4405E1; Sat, 4 Sep 2021 13:47:11 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1630777631; bh=2rLkZ/mY1RREUai9A4AibguFq0mFPXL459CJIIcTrnU=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=fimgFau/YGd909I/dct41uDLshLmX+uu3zKSFs+OnDvkb9KblW/zAzK5LviFDgi+B 4YE0Ob6da0xEaheXm4a2/4+WHopUfweOPA/pRIwVvNg650ssVCyewaQFFt0/doQKZ+ z8s2SMvkpMS+Ftx4Jresjqe6CMpRTe1hPX1wHX2uRupOnUtBZhU/glQuUi9RXMJJO+ BrfDt1w2a7QIIs/F0iozcnv52m2Cd/pLxx54oPfgtkNCrnbX06XoAWL4YzfUfFcVil ipOPmd5JD7U6/FS6ZeZD3FzmYIWyUxVep+2FBizOyGBpSKEq0L97WDT4vtLjyS8H9W aODwavVya+IrQ== Original-Received: from milanesa (unknown [104.247.244.135]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AF6381202FA; Sat, 4 Sep 2021 13:47:10 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <83pmtouul2.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sat, 04 Sep 2021 20:19:37 +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:273940 Archived-At: >> 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. > > You are saying that jit-lock skips invisible text? Indeed, tho `jit-lock.el` itself makes no effort to skip invisible text. > I don't think I see this in the code. IIRC it's a result of the redisplay skipping invisible text and hence not calling `fontification-functions` on it. Stefan