From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Lexical binding doesn't seem to be faster? Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 15:26:49 -0400 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="57996"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org To: Hi-Angel Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Mar 11 20:28:25 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 1h3Qb1-000Eui-2P for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 20:28:23 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38999 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h3Qaz-00040O-Ff for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 15:28:21 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:34199) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h3QaX-000408-Dd for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 15:27:54 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h3QZZ-0007U0-Dz for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 15:26:54 -0400 Original-Received: from pruche.dit.umontreal.ca ([132.204.246.22]:37487) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1h3QZZ-0007So-7t for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 15:26:53 -0400 Original-Received: from pastel.home (lechon.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.242]) by pruche.dit.umontreal.ca (8.14.7/8.14.1) with ESMTP id x2BJQoUi000335; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 15:26:50 -0400 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id E4FC3623AD; Mon, 11 Mar 2019 15:26:49 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Hi-Angel's message of "Mon, 11 Mar 2019 22:16:33 +0300") X-NAI-Spam-Flag: NO X-NAI-Spam-Threshold: 5 X-NAI-Spam-Score: 0.1 X-NAI-Spam-Rules: 3 Rules triggered TRK_NCM1=0.1, EDT_SA_DN_PASS=0, RV6500=0 X-NAI-Spam-Version: 2.3.0.9418 : core <6500> : inlines <7031> : streams <1815421> : uri <2810959> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 132.204.246.22 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:119612 Archived-At: > So, it turned out to be a bug in linux 4.20.5 and earlier, so I > updated to 5.0, and everything is fine now. Hmm... still at 4.18 here, so no wonder I wasn't seeing this problem. > I re-run tests, benchmark results now are tiny bit better for lexical > scope when GC is on, and are the same when GC is off: > > With GC: > t: (8.451301031000002 87 1.5439787770000004), (8.492936438 85 1.527223621) > nil: (8.654444538 87 1.5810563760000003), (8.549887916 85 > 1.5612690489999996) > > No GC: > t: (7.548030708 0 0.0) (7.591869120999999 0 0.0) > nil: (7.519884027 0 0.0) (7.577961806 0 0.0) Hmm... looks like the difference might be statistically insignificant after all (or maybe lexical-binding makes cc-engine.el marginally faster, so it hides the slight slowdown in cc-mode.el). I think you might decide to drop this investigation, at least until you find more clear evidence of a slowdown. Stefan > On Mon, 11 Mar 2019 at 00:22, Hi-Angel wrote: >> >> done https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=34809 >> >> On Sun, 10 Mar 2019 at 23:48, Stefan Monnier wrote: >> > >> > > Do you want me to open a report for above? >> > >> > Yes, please: this is definitely not right. >> > >> > >> > Stefan