From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: lists.texi Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 21:27:15 +0200 Message-ID: References: <200506182319.j5INJWF08937@raven.dms.auburn.edu> <200506190015.j5J0FQk09223@raven.dms.auburn.edu> <200506190037.j5J0b9Y09287@raven.dms.auburn.edu> <200506191747.j5JHlha11521@raven.dms.auburn.edu> <200506202312.j5KNCct19091@raven.dms.auburn.edu> <200506212058.j5LKw5P23961@raven.dms.auburn.edu> <874qbqh0lm.fsf@jurta.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1119465835 22790 80.91.229.2 (22 Jun 2005 18:43:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 18:43:55 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ttn@gnu.org, teirllm@dms.auburn.edu, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jun 22 20:43:52 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DlACA-0006wA-J9 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 22 Jun 2005 20:43:30 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DlAIq-0005mE-22 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 22 Jun 2005 14:50:24 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DlAGo-0005YC-Si for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Jun 2005 14:48:19 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1DlAGd-0005TJ-Gf for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Jun 2005 14:48:09 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DlAGa-0005Ma-NG for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Jun 2005 14:48:04 -0400 Original-Received: from [192.114.186.66] (helo=romy.inter.net.il) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1Dl9zg-000785-QV; Wed, 22 Jun 2005 14:30:37 -0400 Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-34-237.inter.net.il [80.230.34.237]) by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.8-GR) with ESMTP id BPQ47272 (AUTH halo1); Wed, 22 Jun 2005 21:27:18 +0300 (IDT) Original-To: Juri Linkov In-reply-to: <874qbqh0lm.fsf@jurta.org> (message from Juri Linkov on Wed, 22 Jun 2005 19:28:55 +0300) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:39319 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:39319 > From: Juri Linkov > Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 19:28:55 +0300 > Cc: ttn@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org > > > Apparently these timings are not very fixed. In a freshly started > > Emacs, my proposed version took 12 seconds (instead of earlier 23) and > > the abstract versions 40 seconds (instead of 51). This gives a > > mysterious gain of 11 seconds for both. But now my proposed version > > runs 3.33 times faster than the abstract ones, instead of earlier 2.2. > > I noticed too that in sufficiently long Emacs sessions Lisp evaluation > slows down. One possible situation where this could happen is if you customize gc-cons-threshold to a large number.