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: Aborting display. Is this possible? Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 12:56:56 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20141019141712.GB3197@acm.acm> <83lhoccdv7.fsf@gnu.org> <20141019154255.GC3197@acm.acm> <83egu4c4om.fsf@gnu.org> <20141020110949.GA2947@acm.acm> <8338aidbcq.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1413824251 26601 80.91.229.3 (20 Oct 2014 16:57:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 16:57:31 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Alan Mackenzie , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Oct 20 18:57:24 2014 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 1XgGGo-000116-O2 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 18:57:22 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:45996 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XgGGo-0008R0-EV for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 12:57:22 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51794) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XgGGf-0008QU-6S for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 12:57:20 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XgGGX-0008Kw-NS for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 12:57:13 -0400 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.181]:34354) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XgGGP-0008Gu-H7; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 12:56:57 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ArUGAIDvNVNFpY87/2dsb2JhbABZgwaDSsA9gRcXdIIlAQEBAQIBViMFCws0EhQYDSSIBAjSGReOegeEOAEDqRmBaoNMIQ X-IPAS-Result: ArUGAIDvNVNFpY87/2dsb2JhbABZgwaDSsA9gRcXdIIlAQEBAQIBViMFCws0EhQYDSSIBAjSGReOegeEOAEDqRmBaoNMIQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,753,1389762000"; d="scan'208";a="94653351" Original-Received: from 69-165-143-59.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO pastel.home) ([69.165.143.59]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 20 Oct 2014 12:56:56 -0400 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 8B7383EBC; Mon, 20 Oct 2014 12:56:56 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <8338aidbcq.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Mon, 20 Oct 2014 18:12:05 +0300") 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:175598 Archived-At: > If, after processing this single PageDown key, the input queue is > empty (as it is when you lean on the key, because Emacs finishes the > above processing in less time than the auto-repeat interval), Emacs > enters redisplay. This is the case when processing the scroll-up-command takes less time than the repeat rate. > Now, what happens when you release the key? The input queue is still > full of unprocessed PageDown keys. If processing a single scroll-up-command takes less time than the repeat rate, the input queue should never have many unprocessed PageDown events (that's the whole reason why we check the input queue before entering redisplay). So I still don't understand why we see this long delay when releasing the key. Stefan