From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Skipping unexec via a big .elc file Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 08:47:49 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87eg51ng4r.fsf_-_@users.sourceforge.net> <87k2djwumn.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <83h98nidvd.fsf@gnu.org> <87eg3rvtsf.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <83k2dihpm9.fsf@gnu.org> <8760p2wzgj.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <838ttyhhzu.fsf@gnu.org> <871szqwu51.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <831szqhbc2.fsf@gnu.org> <87d1itt79z.fsf_-_@users.sourceforge.net> <7baa18d4-2b09-caa8-005e-29008a383ad1@cs.ucla.edu> <83mvhwrgd5.fsf@gnu.org> <8539f38f-9a11-44c3-4de7-bb974c96206c@cs.ucla.edu> <8360ojpndr.fsf@gnu.org> <83shrnm0k1.fsf@gnu.org> <83oa2a5krl.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1477313347 13495 195.159.176.226 (24 Oct 2016 12:49:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 12:49:07 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Oct 24 14:49:03 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1byegK-0001Gw-7T for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 14:48:48 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:46520 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1byegM-0000pD-HN for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 08:48:50 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58898) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1byefT-0000nr-Ri for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 08:47:56 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1byefT-0003lg-6m for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 08:47:55 -0400 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.181]:13175) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1byefO-0003iW-K3; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 08:47:50 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BHAgALW9BX/++F+M5dGwEBAQMBAQGDLQEBAQEBHoRNhVCEZasRggOGFgQCAoFpORQBAgEBAQEBAQFeJ4RiAQEDAVYjBQsLNBIUGA0kiFUIvFUBAQEHAiWKfYl/HQEEmVmRFYd4hguPDYE+HjaEbCCGCgEBAQ X-IPAS-Result: A0BHAgALW9BX/++F+M5dGwEBAQMBAQGDLQEBAQEBHoRNhVCEZasRggOGFgQCAoFpORQBAgEBAQEBAQFeJ4RiAQEDAVYjBQsLNBIUGA0kiFUIvFUBAQEHAiWKfYl/HQEEmVmRFYd4hguPDYE+HjaEbCCGCgEBAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.30,296,1470715200"; d="scan'208";a="276908097" Original-Received: from 206-248-133-239.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO ceviche.home) ([206.248.133.239]) by smtp.teksavvy.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 24 Oct 2016 08:47:49 -0400 Original-Received: by ceviche.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 432FB6622D; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 08:47:49 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <83oa2a5krl.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Mon, 24 Oct 2016 09:22:22 +0300") 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: 2.1.21 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" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:208678 Archived-At: >> I tried it with my local build of master (not optimized) as well as with >> the "emacs24" executable provided by Debian. Both times were comparable. > An unoptimized Emacs runs about 3 times slower, In my experience it's much less drastic, unless you include enable_checking and such in "unoptimized". > so I cannot explain your comparable results with both versions, it > doesn't match any of my experiences. The way I explained it to myself is that the lread.c code is much less affected (e.g. it should almost be unaffected by enable_checking). BTW, have you tried my experiement on your side? Stefan