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: master c59e878: Inhibit modification hooks when saving eieio-persistent's Date: Sun, 03 May 2020 00:01:01 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20200501192115.23847.67499@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <20200501192116.A55EE20B5B@vcs0.savannah.gnu.org> <87368jba7f.fsf@web.de> <87y2qb9tv3.fsf@web.de> <87tv0z9qt2.fsf@web.de> <87bln611vs.fsf@web.de> <87a72p7n4v.fsf@web.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="53807"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: Eric Abrahamsen , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Michael Heerdegen Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun May 03 06:01:41 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 1jV5oy-000DuQ-ON for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 03 May 2020 06:01:40 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:58120 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jV5ox-0004r2-Py for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 03 May 2020 00:01:39 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:42690) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jV5oP-0004Qa-Lz for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 03 May 2020 00:01:05 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:42850) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jV5oO-0001Gn-UQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 03 May 2020 00:01:05 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2D83A44F3EF; Sun, 3 May 2020 00:01:04 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A7E1B44EFF1; Sun, 3 May 2020 00:01:02 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1588478462; bh=GlH/W4eB6AItlH+hf/8SWsziJcAMfECis6VxP6VfUDg=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=jGrCMgV+EkSW46PgOLwy6ZFltN1PfzIw8I6D6VRkGHR83VybhCFABOXXgHQ30Vwjt xXwdlYHZS927B1sN9ITqQzXxYBxfTJoQFT846SEiOPJaqmeoH/t0bek0AILPYOh5qY w2k8VzF4z38BTuGVdH2YUtO//8cBfUwN4CvOXhJdzz5szjVtFVy5NKXdh3q39EFfGt TfE9oga4bL3AORlCfvieYpPhXj+omynFiqg1nvAofRMaKwqXK2FTFB5u2el1PPdqjd 8pDWvjR2iMmVrJNLgOND6+zd4dvK56uZIYyemecSMj3UM7Qz3gT/UMw/QEhgUqw+l2 M8gPFVABu9Dlw== Original-Received: from alfajor (unknown [216.154.3.202]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 31C8E12053C; Sun, 3 May 2020 00:01:02 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <87a72p7n4v.fsf@web.de> (Michael Heerdegen's message of "Sun, 03 May 2020 04:44:48 +0200") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/05/02 23:26:12 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] 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_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001 autolearn=_AUTOLEARN 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:248632 Archived-At: >> `combine-change-calls` is a bit less blunt, but it should still be used >> with care. > After having identified the culprits in my case - all of them can be > fixed - there is not much speedup left from this particular change. > Given that, but also given that we don't know what other people might > have added there - do you think that using `combine-change-calls' in > this case is justified, Stefan? I hope not ;-) Stefan