From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Is Elisp really that slow? Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 18:14:08 +0300 Message-ID: <83zhnq9ykf.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20190502214006.4fdsinp7u5xuqvdv@Ergus> <20190503004416.xfuzzucflp6bxpuz@Ergus> <8736lm30lz.fsf@web.de> <864l61j04d.fsf@zoho.eu> <20190511073254.GB29829@tuxteam.de> <04187AB9-AD7D-492D-A890-BCB01848370C@icloud.com> <20190511075712.GD29829@tuxteam.de> <86a7fsfv1m.fsf@zoho.eu> <20190512075448.GA11650@tuxteam.de> <346107E9-590D-4A18-9152-ECFF36FC4EDC@icloud.com> <83r293bvok.fsf@gnu.org> <87ef53vihw.fsf@telefonica.net> <83mujrbsk7.fsf@gnu.org> <867eavywh1.fsf@zoho.eu> <837eaubesw.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="250140"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon May 13 17:14:40 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hQCf2-0012z1-9g for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 13 May 2019 17:14:40 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59007 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hQCf1-0001Yh-7I for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 13 May 2019 11:14:39 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:49056) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hQCep-0001YP-1c for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 13 May 2019 11:14:28 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:46243) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hQCel-0001km-Fj for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 13 May 2019 11:14:25 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=1605 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1hQCek-0000VV-W6 for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 13 May 2019 11:14:23 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from John Yates on Mon, 13 May 2019 11:02:41 -0400) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:120348 Archived-At: > From: John Yates > Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 11:02:41 -0400 > Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org > > I would argue that the experience of debugging using gdb-mi with > gdb-many-windows set is quite painful. So even what I thought was still "good enough" isn't, really... Hardly surprising, given that it's unmaintained for the last few years. > At work various of my > team members use gdb via VSCode. On unit and package tests the > performance is comparable. Once one progresses to the company's > enormous full application the performance difference is startling. Is this perhaps due to parsing the GDB/MI output? Did you try to profile that case? If it's due to parsing, maybe switching it to use the built-in JSON available with Emacs 27 could help (assuming that profiling points to that as a hot spot)?