From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: 64 bit official Windows builds Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 10:51:20 +0200 Message-ID: <83si0y71mf.fsf@gnu.org> References: <2577057e-98d3-41ce-ade2-1496648b09c3@googlegroups.com> <8337t3qdpd.fsf@gnu.org> <83wpqb7yzk.fsf@gnu.org> <8760xuuc3g.fsf@wanadoo.es> <83h9he8lkp.fsf@gnu.org> <87vb5us8iy.fsf@wanadoo.es> <834mde8j3x.fsf@gnu.org> <87mvr6s5rm.fsf@wanadoo.es> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1455267108 25553 80.91.229.3 (12 Feb 2016 08:51:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 08:51:48 +0000 (UTC) To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Feb 12 09:51:43 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1aU9S1-0005vv-IA for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 09:51:41 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:58670 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aU9S0-0006vS-R7 for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 03:51:40 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45694) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aU9Rn-0006ut-NY for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 03:51:28 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aU9Rk-0007X0-I1 for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 03:51:27 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:43650) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aU9Rk-0007Wv-Ej for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 03:51:24 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:1907 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1aU9Rj-0007cX-Ny for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 03:51:24 -0500 In-reply-to: <87mvr6s5rm.fsf@wanadoo.es> (message from =?iso-8859-1?Q?=D3s?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?car?= Fuentes on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 09:16:13 +0100) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:109129 Archived-At: > From: Óscar Fuentes > Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 09:16:13 +0100 > > >> Not saying that GNU Find will be representative of what you can expect > >> from Emacs. (GNU Find: I/O bound; Emacs: user bound.) > > > > Performance only matters when you do prolonged operations. One such > > prolonged operation in Emacs is reading a directory in Dired, in which > > case what Emacs does is quite similar to what Find does. For someone > > who uses Dired extensively, the GNU Find example is not irrelevant. > > Are there reports about Dired being slow on Windows 32 bits? Just > curious. Compared to what? a Posix host that runs 'ls' instead? you betcha! Comparing that to a 64-bit Emacs would be a good measurement, I think. I didn't try that. > > Memory- and CPU-intensive operations is another matter. But here, > > too, I'd welcome actual measurements more than theories. Measurements > > can and do surprise, as is known to anyone who ever profiled a > > real-life program. > > I'm glad you think this way. So now we have agreed that the existence of > a dramatic performance gap between 32 and 64 bits Emacs executables and > its cause being API thunking is just a theory of yours based on limited > evidence :-) I actually said that already in my reply to Stefan, didn't I? > My also (limited) evidence is that 64 bit Windows binaries can be a bit > faster than 32 bit ones, and vice-versa. For instance: my experience > building complex C++ code with GCC is that the 32 bit compiler runs a > bit faster than its 64 bit version. For Emacs, I see no difference, it > is responsive on both systems. Responsiveness is not what is at stake here, as I already wrote. You need some prolonged operation, either I/O intensive or CPU- or memory-intensive (or both). Try repeatedly searching a regexp through a large buffer, or run XML validation on a large XML document, or anything similar.