From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Lazy printing in tabulated-list-mode Date: Mon, 04 May 2015 08:38:26 -0400 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1430743138 28381 80.91.229.3 (4 May 2015 12:38:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 12:38:58 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel To: Artur Malabarba Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon May 04 14:38:49 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YpFe2-0004Vg-Ih for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 04 May 2015 14:38:46 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:34060 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YpFe1-0001eR-Tn for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 04 May 2015 08:38:45 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46842) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YpFdn-0001eJ-Pi for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 04 May 2015 08:38:32 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YpFdl-0003Qu-2g for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 04 May 2015 08:38:31 -0400 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.181]:63958) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YpFdk-0003Qd-VY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 04 May 2015 08:38:29 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgUFAGvvdVRFpYts/2dsb2JhbAA3gVOhb4EIgXUBAQQBViMFCwsOJhIUGA0kiBOiEYwDClcJAwECgz4Dg3AEo2OEWA X-IPAS-Result: AgUFAGvvdVRFpYts/2dsb2JhbAA3gVOhb4EIgXUBAQQBViMFCwsOJhIUGA0kiBOiEYwDClcJAwECgz4Dg3AEo2OEWA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,557,1422939600"; d="scan'208";a="118193229" Original-Received: from 69-165-139-108.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO pastel.home) ([69.165.139.108]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 04 May 2015 08:38:27 -0400 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id CB0731A76; Mon, 4 May 2015 08:38:26 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Artur Malabarba's message of "Mon, 4 May 2015 09:21:37 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 206.248.154.181 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:186179 Archived-At: > Secondly, how do you see the running time on the profiler? Supposedly, we have one sample per ms (given the default profiler-sample-interval), so the 1.3s comes from the total number of samples. I'm not actually sure this is accurate. > 0.6s per print is less than the "couple of seconds" I reported > earlier, because that was without byte-compiling. Still, I think it's > something we can optimize because the benchmark reports 67% of the > time was spent garbage collecting. Right, 0.6s is not unbearable, but it's borderline, and there should be optimization opportunities. Stefan