From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: Andrea Corallo Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Reliable after-change-functions (via: Using incremental parsing in Emacs) Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2020 18:29:45 +0000 Message-ID: References: <83v9mkz5oo.fsf@gnu.org> <83pncsym6l.fsf@gnu.org> <4a9d6bb2-458d-89b0-5389-d1f883ef24a1@yandex.ru> <20200401135237.GA6240@ACM> <20200404110643.GB5329@ACM> <8a5e50ce-1ca6-078b-7e4b-b7849207092d@yandex.ru> <20200404123613.GE5329@ACM> <837dyvv1yq.fsf@gnu.org> <05ef31a9-a75e-4bbc-2c80-70d581baa0e9@yandex.ru> <83y2rbtddx.fsf@gnu.org> <83tv1ztd24.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="31471"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) Cc: Alan Mackenzie , Eli Zaretskii , Emacs Development , Dmitry Gutov To: Richard Copley Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Apr 04 20:30:28 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 1jKnYq-00086z-Fv for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 04 Apr 2020 20:30:28 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:41416 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jKnYp-0008Pz-I7 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 04 Apr 2020 14:30:27 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:41773) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jKnYD-0007zN-Ju for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 04 Apr 2020 14:29:50 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jKnYC-0007Tz-Hg for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 04 Apr 2020 14:29:49 -0400 Original-Received: from mx.sdf.org ([205.166.94.20]:61351) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jKnYC-0007TQ-Am; Sat, 04 Apr 2020 14:29:48 -0400 Original-Received: from sdf.org (ma.sdf.org [205.166.94.33]) by mx.sdf.org (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPS id 034ITjFO004714 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256 bits) verified NO); Sat, 4 Apr 2020 18:29:45 GMT Original-Received: (from akrl@localhost) by sdf.org (8.15.2/8.12.8/Submit) id 034ITjOs022752; Sat, 4 Apr 2020 18:29:45 GMT In-Reply-To: (Richard Copley's message of "Sat, 4 Apr 2020 18:22:34 +0100") X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 205.166.94.20 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:246421 Archived-At: Richard Copley writes: > For my earlier results, I ran the -Og benchmark was in the git > repository (with .git a directory) and the other three in git > worktrees (with .git a regular file). I have repeated my tests for the > -Og case in a git worktree, to match the other three. It didn't make a > significant difference. I haven't tried it outside of git. > > Amended results below, including time in GC, for two runs each in > separate instances of "emacs -Q". In all 16 cases there were 8 GCs. > > with sit-for, (benchmark 1 '(progn (find-file "src/xdisp.c") (sit-for 0))) > -Og 1.340039s (0.149663s), 1.350613s (0.149954s) > -O2 0.533649s (0.046995s), 0.533949s (0.046714s) > -O1 0.661679s (0.055181s), 0.664470s (0.057050s) > -O0 1.079090s (0.168691s), 1.068118s (0.168451s) > > without sit-for, (benchmark 1 '(progn (find-file "src/xdisp.c"))) > -Og 1.293845s (0.150200s), 1.305310s (0.149520s) > -O2 0.513139s (0.047117s), 0.511230s (0.047143s) > -O1 0.629743s (0.054738s), 0.629870s (0.056522s) > -O0 1.027754s (0.165569s), 1.031642s (0.168891s) The fact that -Og is slower then -O0 is very sad but also interesting. Which (I guess) GCC version are you on? Generally speaking I suspect -Og is not very much tested, especially performance wise. Andrea -- akrl@sdf.org