From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: Ulrich Mueller Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: emacs rendering comparisson between emacs23 and emacs26.3 Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2020 12:20:21 +0100 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="130499"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.90 (gnu/linux) Cc: acm@muc.de, Eli Zaretskii , rrandresf@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Richard Stallman Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Mar 28 12:21:35 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 1jI9Wx-000Xqk-J1 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 28 Mar 2020 12:21:35 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:52192 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jI9Ww-0005KJ-MC for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 28 Mar 2020 07:21:34 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:43446) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jI9WE-0004tE-Ee for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 28 Mar 2020 07:20:51 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jI9WB-0003va-T6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 28 Mar 2020 07:20:49 -0400 Original-Received: from dev.gentoo.org ([2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]:39003 helo=smtp.gentoo.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jI9W7-0003r0-1O; Sat, 28 Mar 2020 07:20:43 -0400 Original-Received: from themis (dslb-088-068-082-046.088.068.pools.vodafone-ip.de [88.68.82.46]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: ulm) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D6D9334F941; Sat, 28 Mar 2020 11:20:31 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: (emacs-devel-request@gnu.org's message of "Sat, 28 Mar 2020 03:32:00 -0400") X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4 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:245863 Archived-At: >>>>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2020, Richard Stallman wrote: >> It's not possible. Bidirectional editing support in Emacs is >> unconditional, it isn't an optional feature. > It isn't optional _now_ but maybe there is an opportunity to optimize > redisplay if the userssays "no BIDI". > Maybe some of the pre-bidi code could be brought back and used > when the user says there is no BIDI in the buffer. >> What I would suggest is to compare with Emacs 24.1, which already >> supported bidi. > It would be interesting to compare 24 and 23, to see what slowdown > there is. And compare other subsequent versions to see what slowdown > there is. These could give hints for what operations are worth trying > to optimize. I've run the benchmark for several Emacs versions, on a Thinkpad L580 from 2018 (Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-8550U CPU @ 1.80GHz). In all cases, I used xdisp.c from version 26.3 as the test file. 18.59 n/a 0.320 23.4 5.436 1.019 24.5 25.482 1.636 25.3 22.370 1.610 26.3 16.533 1.911 27.0.90 17.602 2.339 First column is the version, second and third column are the times with font-lock-mode enabled and disabled, respectively.