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 20:36:37 +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="62769"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) Cc: Emacs Development To: Richard Copley Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Apr 04 22:37:18 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 1jKpXa-000GDC-Ce for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 04 Apr 2020 22:37:18 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42082 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jKpXZ-0000PQ-En for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 04 Apr 2020 16:37:17 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:53107) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jKpX2-0008LK-Ku for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 04 Apr 2020 16:36:45 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jKpWy-0003ry-MQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 04 Apr 2020 16:36:44 -0400 Original-Received: from mx.sdf.org ([205.166.94.20]:65154) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jKpWy-0003qc-DO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 04 Apr 2020 16:36:40 -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 034KabJf012704 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256 bits) verified NO); Sat, 4 Apr 2020 20:36:37 GMT Original-Received: (from akrl@localhost) by sdf.org (8.15.2/8.12.8/Submit) id 034Kab8W018487; Sat, 4 Apr 2020 20:36:37 GMT In-Reply-To: (Richard Copley's message of "Sat, 4 Apr 2020 19:56:38 +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:246425 Archived-At: Richard Copley writes: > On Sat, 4 Apr 2020 at 19:29, Andrea Corallo wrote: > >> The fact that -Og is slower then -O0 is very sad but also interesting. > > Yeah. Among its other selling points, it should give "a reasonable > level of optimization" [1]. Yep, it does not make much sense to be honest. Just the fact you do not spill and fill all the time every automatic variables on the stack should give a measurable improvement. There must be some macroscopic reason we are missing. > [1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Optimize-Options.html#index-Og > >> Which (I guess) GCC version are you on? > > GCC 9.3.0, for/on 64-bit Windows, built by MSYS2. > > >> Generally speaking I suspect -Og is not very much tested, especially >> performance wise. > -- akrl@sdf.org