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: Time to merge scratch/correct-warning-pos into master, perhaps? Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2022 15:37:55 -0500 Message-ID: References: <838ruq2z5t.fsf@gnu.org> <83v8xt20db.fsf@gnu.org> <83ee4gyzrh.fsf@gnu.org> <83v8xryh4d.fsf@gnu.org> <831qzyzt5t.fsf@gnu.org> <874k4u92gp.fsf@randomsample> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="32940"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: David Engster , Eli Zaretskii , larsi@gnus.org, mattiase@acm.org, gregory@heytings.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Feb 20 21:39:21 2022 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 1nLszH-0008J6-Vu for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 20 Feb 2022 21:39:20 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39096 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nLszG-0007Vh-Kc for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 20 Feb 2022 15:39:18 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:45678) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nLsy5-0006K4-8R for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 20 Feb 2022 15:38:05 -0500 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:54921) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nLsy1-0000q7-Qf; Sun, 20 Feb 2022 15:38:03 -0500 Original-Received: from pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D23C5100184; Sun, 20 Feb 2022 15:37:58 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg1.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 634C81000D2; Sun, 20 Feb 2022 15:37:57 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1645389477; bh=SNEKea2WW79RuAPpG5DFFdbx4OtlMoc7B3iUM98JFWQ=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=FdNSTv5H+DqdiSd43ewlGnjrWmD7s2AObwiWJQzNkgwmPnXpW93rgKpkTZRHxGMur 8EkvdVNjjwSQrOVivFxZllG/QzMAUGfr15c2WPS86nJLD8kmvUayiZ6CHRocDuQhBF MVskIhWmqehD88jDjTTk/PMp6UH54XHSlIHQiIXpdvXUm8Z2z2aiey0Nnp5KNasJLM Lo8ZM3u082FurZnBzUGcJhisUfZwPuYOwfxsDacwKbXQNi0EV7BleImFJIuHpJ6vY6 5JvsuaE9VwA7siPG2CGSL5x5+R5VX0NOQIi+6wgerz5p0Up9Eb4l/lsgzu787i4upp VeJmfVap/fHdA== Original-Received: from pastel (unknown [45.72.237.157]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0EA1D120976; Sun, 20 Feb 2022 15:37:57 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: (Alan Mackenzie's message of "Sat, 19 Feb 2022 22:10:13 +0000") 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, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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:286537 Archived-At: > I seem to have a default setting of 4kHz. This was enough to get several > thousand hits in each build ("old" and "new") running the test suite. As > I wrote in my post just now to Eli, the results came up contrary to what > was expected - the "old" build, running the simple EQ spent more time in > it than the "new" build running the complicated EQ. Possibly I've made > some silly mistake in the measurements. Maybe it's because EQ was used for NILP before but isn't used for it any more? In any case, in my experience measuring such things is wickedly difficult. It's even hard to define what it is we really want to measure because the impact will depend so heavily of how the code gets inlined&scheduled by the compiler and then how it gets scheduled in the CPU, and how branch prediction interacts with it, etc... Stefan