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: Redisplay slower in Emacs 28 than Emacs 27 Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2020 16:01:41 -0500 Message-ID: References: <83czzl8qwu.fsf@gnu.org> <87sg8h78s8.fsf@gnus.org> <837dpt8lk5.fsf@gnu.org> <87pn3kjssr.fsf@gnus.org> <83im9c70vu.fsf@gnu.org> <87im9cfeej.fsf@gnus.org> <837dps6xyv.fsf@gnu.org> <87czzkdx57.fsf@gnus.org> <83v9dc5he3.fsf@gnu.org> <87r1o0chk9.fsf@gnus.org> <83tusw5g5o.fsf@gnu.org> <87360gaz7o.fsf@gnus.org> <875z5b9a84.fsf@gnus.org> <83360e6cip.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="7164"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: ghe@sdf.org, larsi@gnus.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Dec 09 22:03:23 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 1kn6cN-0001mk-CF for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 09 Dec 2020 22:03:23 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50298 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kn6cM-00070I-Be for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 09 Dec 2020 16:03:22 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:34696) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kn6aq-0006LX-5I for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 09 Dec 2020 16:01:48 -0500 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:44747) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kn6an-00066M-W1; Wed, 09 Dec 2020 16:01:47 -0500 Original-Received: from pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2C4C480D86; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 16:01:44 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id EAF3E8070D; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 16:01:42 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1607547702; bh=In1GKJHRWwo2qtklb37A3lscfKL/Dw+tfr1Aw8OoCzo=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=HxvuvEN7q2SPJDFNaHvYzQXiC67hzQHeZsm601nKIHGAKc9eFBPliQEGuFL1D+HZ9 UHud+JwWuu/VCHOib+oBdBjlIwtlWSNj/fcu7zTR3bads46ktu/0FxtWomTp1LR2y1 WXlAmPn/ETScERFW7Tolb03aqXlYxNIE1l0KuBf4QodOwQLUTBJUN6BSyOAdN7/RBY HaXJHwKEtwWA96OCE1enCuG6Z70ajukFWEdmjjv2bnJI3J+kQGnOJZpJs34G+mxqE7 y9HwF3sAyYodHEHsEzwVHesVjwe0A6Ako5Q0KgCsuEJM6bkoFp/I58INX8xOjcdaKx pRyAuUEtEOKjg== Original-Received: from alfajor (69-165-136-52.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.165.136.52]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7F4B9120124; Wed, 9 Dec 2020 16:01:42 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <83360e6cip.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Wed, 09 Dec 2020 20:49:02 +0200") 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:260614 Archived-At: > Btw, any particular reason for the cutoff of 16 bytes to switch to the > "large chunk" branch? The reason is that I felt it looked good ;-) Well, not only: the "large chunk" branch operates 8bytes at a time on 64bit systems, so if we use it on a 15B string it will only consult the first 8B which I thought wasn't good enough, whereas I felt that ignoring the last 7B of a 23B string was acceptable. Stefan