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: Sat, 21 Mar 2020 18:47:11 -0400 Message-ID: References: <86tv2h2vww.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="37639"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: rrandresf@gmail.com Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Mar 21 23:47:48 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 1jFmuC-0009gB-7g for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 21 Mar 2020 23:47:48 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:41492 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jFmuB-0001aQ-Aa for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 21 Mar 2020 18:47:47 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:33310) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jFmti-0001Bg-2M for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 21 Mar 2020 18:47:19 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jFmtg-000287-HJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 21 Mar 2020 18:47:17 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:27875) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jFmtf-00027S-GZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 21 Mar 2020 18:47:15 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id EC129801AC; Sat, 21 Mar 2020 18:47:13 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 82F4E80D47; Sat, 21 Mar 2020 18:47:12 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1584830832; bh=vYaHkLK9jAfN/kqSyiUAbyfJXfHDCYeoT38635W2vcM=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=kMC/LpsEOFAho5o5pk+YqrpCUtPRQvaxIWwefznWo/TAuBLwbdBPJU1j0hkPKaJiM 8QmNj6/ldm5hpE1HjnYnaJ4Zo87BLZcTeYyO07Jizny3o7TZVW/WJvITjt07uMbAO1 HMInOD1eUQ0KAuuv+HY7bKIZJAGd/NirXKxTCKDqYAoUxNQQxnMi+vHIs+ugv4ZdvJ wcnO9KHB4e67ws18kQWPz50jxzvlk6vEseejQE1IOvPcvrtfjmUjDwBdIiykEuJVzX jUkSoORl3c6srkEGvZcupWFNW5tSUvbcUgGHSitKIOIstOT314eMKwllONK+/1vzMV OgurHuFvglq5g== Original-Received: from alfajor (unknown [104.247.241.114]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4F6D212076D; Sat, 21 Mar 2020 18:47:12 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <86tv2h2vww.fsf@gmail.com> (rrandresf@gmail.com's message of "Sat, 21 Mar 2020 22:19:27 +0000") 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:245652 Archived-At: > --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- > emacs-23 > 162.7052059173584 > emacs-26.3 > 281.4721345901489 > --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- [...] > Teoretically. What would be the cause of this difference on rendering > between versions? It's hard to tell without digging deeper, it could be in part due to changes to the actual redisplay code or to the rest of the C code, but I suspect it's mostly due to improvements (featurewise) in CC-mode. I just compared this test's performance using `c-mode` vs using `sm-c-mode` (a comparatively very bare-bones major mode limited to "normal" C (no support for any C++ feature nor for old K&R-style C, nor for very modern C)), and the speed difference was even larger. Stefan