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: [PATCH 0/7] Cleanups and tests for DEFVAR_PER_BUFFER variables Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2021 12:48:53 -0400 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="8352"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: Spencer Baugh , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Mar 25 18:00:47 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 1lPTLj-00023O-Gu for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2021 18:00:47 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:55288 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lPTLi-0000dC-CI for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2021 13:00:46 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:33938) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lPTAO-0000Zq-R2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2021 12:49:04 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:4036) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lPTAL-0004iA-Rm; Thu, 25 Mar 2021 12:49:04 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6A7CA10022E; Thu, 25 Mar 2021 12:49:00 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 7A5DA1001D2; Thu, 25 Mar 2021 12:48:54 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1616690934; bh=LjuTzVrBxEU0GA2vKhmc1ezQRZ2qa5YcHiUyzVNYGfE=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=Pio4y5fWSYYYpX3aOMBBbuMcDdJPHOnJQl7LEainkmZZTliqPAIY4OF5ooU2rr6pI 2vphCpFaIg6O/ZeotjcxQ3dhRUAk6IJ6p7/8alF90IzKO0rEtEIj8kiBudgoig65IH m9uqVMySJp5vuJTwRy00vpTLbYzGdyZo4WsnrFg2wEN7UTHPxbgWjxrMRvD7foUaI9 NMUVIYm2J/5EiI22C91yrDtt5nlQn+rWC7xQEpijNoK9vAp+c7OodCzOqJJbj8G44V 1/9U6n3Dr/6ZkcSWRKwuph6RE+x2opanHI+tapyEsv1bWM+RNJCgH1qbm1gAjzOQnV e9+P9q406XQ4g== Original-Received: from alfajor (unknown [216.154.43.249]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 46BD7120312; Thu, 25 Mar 2021 12:48:54 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Wed, 24 Mar 2021 01:36:17 -0400") 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:267036 Archived-At: > I'd prefer to pick up where we left off back then. The main issue > left unresolved in the past discussion was the potential slowdown of > simple accesses to buffer-local vars due to your proposal. Can we > please have benchmarks for that, so we could decide whether the > tradeoff is worth it? It's quite possible that the performance > aspects could affect the code changes, so even uncontroversial > cleanups should perhaps wait until we have figured out the more > important aspects of these changesets. I think those changes are good to go and fundamentally unrelated to the discussion (except to the extent that they were found while investigating that part of the code). Of course, they may not be the final word, but I'd rather install those now so they don't get lost if the rest of the discussion ends up not going anywhere and also so the rest of the discussion doesn't need to be using patches relative to code that's not in `master`. Stefan