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: Extra info about 109170 Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 19:32:08 -0400 Message-ID: References: <50098373.6080505@yandex.ru> <83txx17cnp.fsf@gnu.org> <83d33n259n.fsf@gnu.org> <83y5maze84.fsf@gnu.org> <83lii9ksb1.fsf@gnu.org> <83eho0lf3y.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1343259141 11015 80.91.229.3 (25 Jul 2012 23:32:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 23:32:21 +0000 (UTC) Cc: dmantipov@yandex.ru, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jul 26 01:32:21 2012 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 1SuB3w-0008VA-Ma for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 01:32:16 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:53077 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SuB3w-0004cq-28 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 19:32:16 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:34675) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SuB3t-0004ci-6d for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 19:32:14 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SuB3s-0003q6-Aj for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 19:32:13 -0400 Original-Received: from chene.dit.umontreal.ca ([132.204.246.20]:57543) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SuB3s-0003pz-7A; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 19:32:12 -0400 Original-Received: from fmsmemgm.homelinux.net (lechon.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.242]) by chene.dit.umontreal.ca (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id q6PNW8q4032491; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 19:32:09 -0400 Original-Received: by fmsmemgm.homelinux.net (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 7B711AECAF; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 19:32:08 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <83eho0lf3y.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Wed, 25 Jul 2012 06:00:17 +0300") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1.50 (gnu/linux) X-NAI-Spam-Flag: NO X-NAI-Spam-Level: X-NAI-Spam-Threshold: 5 X-NAI-Spam-Score: 0.2 X-NAI-Spam-Rules: 2 Rules triggered GEN_SPAM_FEATRE=0.2, RV4290=0 X-NAI-Spam-Version: 2.2.0.9309 : core <4290> : streams <790335> : uri <1174941> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 132.204.246.20 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:151886 Archived-At: > I simply don't think we should pay attention to kill-buffer here. It > takes only 12% of the run time in this case, and is not an important > operation in general to invest efforts in speeding it up. To me, this optimization is a "low hanging fruit", which gives you 8% of speed up for little effort. I don't know of many such optimizations. Stefan