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: The Emacs master is much slower than the emacs-27 branch. Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2020 09:38:26 -0500 Message-ID: References: <877dpyzg9d.fsf@rub.de> <87czzpsyqn.fsf@gmx.net> <83o8j9eqwx.fsf@gnu.org> <874kl1spe9.fsf@gmx.net> <83blf9em55.fsf@gnu.org> <87zh2tr82r.fsf@gmx.net> <87v9dhr7i5.fsf@gmx.net> <838sadefiw.fsf@gnu.org> <87r1o5r22z.fsf@gmx.net> <87eek42vth.fsf@tcd.ie> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="2591"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: acm@muc.de, Eli Zaretskii , Stephen Berman , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Basil L. Contovounesios" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Dec 05 15:40:01 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 1klYjB-0000ZL-Q4 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 05 Dec 2020 15:40:01 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:45354 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1klYj9-00060Y-GP for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 05 Dec 2020 09:40:00 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:53680) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1klYhs-0005Zk-TI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Dec 2020 09:38:42 -0500 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:22008) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1klYhp-0000MQ-Vt; Sat, 05 Dec 2020 09:38:39 -0500 Original-Received: from pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 474D94402EA; Sat, 5 Dec 2020 09:38:36 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B90BA4408DA; Sat, 5 Dec 2020 09:38:27 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1607179107; bh=eTzE6i3JNoVRXTfghKvHTy05liuCz2vvGfK3FrVsLWg=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=dL+kw8ToH9v4Nd2gyK36KCnTdDx/bvBSE9K83Nrs3zFW49qB20kClYX4wUilJeSDJ YfG/OS0jt6vp/Yr0ytd02pzHKeg6czW7itbb4FLXLKP3FzTKeG7irs23kUDo2DxHGI vUtSK/cBEDq7/Dfpo2LJLvPRWGX52iJR6LXtOsMzDsfykbF7y7W1jk6wWV5w+YDuq2 hnzaUgMjf77OqLg1Tl8+znYds21i1waZiAVN78u1FQWV5qxovC79D0zdmDOPqovkFm X1V1y1yLZvcjlCZndV4LoAneIfv0GpUhQTm08s4D5asi4R/wXa1N71jd4NJ4/JX+LK celwo8lKvrxfw== Original-Received: from alfajor (69-165-136-52.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.165.136.52]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5AAF0120185; Sat, 5 Dec 2020 09:38:27 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <87eek42vth.fsf@tcd.ie> (Basil L. Contovounesios's message of "Sat, 05 Dec 2020 14:04:26 +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 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:260361 Archived-At: >> I doubt GMP and XWIDGETS make any difference > Do emacs-27 and master use different GMP libraries (libgmp vs mini-gmp)? Not that I know, no (they both use either libgmp or mini-gmp depending on availability). > If so, couldn't this account for minor timing differences? No, these benchmarks use way too few bignum computations to make any difference. Stefan