From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: scratch/accurate-warning-pos: Solid progress: the branch now bootstraps. Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 07:43:36 +0000 Message-ID: <20181127074336.GA4705@ACM> References: <20181125193050.GH27152@ACM> <2c2ae483-3309-f79d-07a5-30af1f49058b@cs.ucla.edu> <20181125212920.GK27152@ACM> <60ac9dfc-b540-89f9-68ea-ec7cceaa8511@cs.ucla.edu> <83in0kijz0.fsf@gnu.org> <9e216e61-7d95-94f0-cbee-593b4f32ced2@cs.ucla.edu> <20181126184359.GG4030@ACM> <55044caa-18fb-9e9a-81b4-3912f64d0aa4@cs.ucla.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1543304743 1346 195.159.176.226 (27 Nov 2018 07:45:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 07:45:43 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Cc: michael_heerdegen@web.de, Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org, cpitclaudel@gmail.com, monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA To: Paul Eggert Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Nov 27 08:45:38 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1gRY3r-0000BJ-5b for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 27 Nov 2018 08:45:35 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40515 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gRY5x-0001jq-Mc for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 27 Nov 2018 02:47:45 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49881) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gRY5L-0001ja-WB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 27 Nov 2018 02:47:08 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gRY5J-00021O-6T for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 27 Nov 2018 02:47:07 -0500 Original-Received: from colin.muc.de ([193.149.48.1]:42314 helo=mail.muc.de) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gRY5I-00020v-RP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 27 Nov 2018 02:47:05 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail 2110 invoked by uid 3782); 27 Nov 2018 07:47:04 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (p2E5D5B5F.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [46.93.91.95]) by colin.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Tue, 27 Nov 2018 08:47:02 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 5492 invoked by uid 1000); 27 Nov 2018 07:43:36 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <55044caa-18fb-9e9a-81b4-3912f64d0aa4@cs.ucla.edu> X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/1.1.12 (Macallan) X-Primary-Address: acm@muc.de X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: FreeBSD 9.x [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 193.149.48.1 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:231436 Archived-At: Hello, Paul. On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 18:48:49 -0800, Paul Eggert wrote: > On 11/26/18 10:43 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > > read the thread "Thoughts on getting correct line > > numbers in the byte compiler's warning messages", which began here on > > 2018-11-01. > I read that thread, but to be honest my eyes began glazing over. I'm > sure I missed some points. :-) Yes, I get that too, sometimes. Perhaps the main conclusion we came to was that it is far better working with symbols than with conses. Even after macro-expansion, and processing by byte-opt.el and cconv.el, the symbols persist. Mostly. The cons cells don't, not at all. Creating the double Lisp interpreter is orthogonal to this choice between symbols and conses. i would recommend you to use the mechanism in scratch/accurate-warning-pos in your new version. It works, and all you have to do is get over your distaste for EQ ignoring source positions when comparing symbols. > > The slowdown seems to be chrystallising out at 20 - 25% while byte > > compiling, and 5 - 20% otherwise. > > > > This may be significant, but is it really important? Most of the time, > > Emacs is waiting for the next key depression anyway. > And most of the time, my office at work is empty. That doesn't mean I > don't care how well my office performs when a half-dozen people squeeze > into it and try to get work done (which happened multiple times > today...). Emacs regularly reacts too slowly for me when I use it in > ordinary interaction, and I'd rather not see it get significantly slower. OK, that's a valid statement. > > As a data point, my 1.5 year old machine is about 150% faster (per core) > > than its predecessor. > My desktop uses a circa 2010 design and is no doubt significantly slower > than your machine. No doubt that partly explains why I'm more sensitive > about performance issues. Not really. My previous machine was from 2009, and I don't recall problems with sluggishness. Possibly slowness in batch-like operations, yes, but not sluggishness. Maybe your brain just works faster than mine does. Emacs used to work OK on machines 10, 100 times slower than what we have today. Were there really that many complaints about its speed? -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).