From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Reliable after-change-functions (via: Using incremental parsing in Emacs) Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2020 11:06:43 +0000 Message-ID: <20200404110643.GB5329@ACM> References: <835zek1kpv.fsf@gnu.org> <83v9mkz5oo.fsf@gnu.org> <83pncsym6l.fsf@gnu.org> <4a9d6bb2-458d-89b0-5389-d1f883ef24a1@yandex.ru> <20200401135237.GA6240@ACM> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="55876"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org, casouri@gmail.com, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, akrl@sdf.org To: Dmitry Gutov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Apr 04 13:07:25 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 1jKge5-000EPN-1m for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 04 Apr 2020 13:07:25 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37566 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jKge4-0005tA-4i for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 04 Apr 2020 07:07:24 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:43855) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jKgdU-0005Sx-Db for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 04 Apr 2020 07:06:49 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jKgdT-0005bf-7z for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 04 Apr 2020 07:06:48 -0400 Original-Received: from colin.muc.de ([193.149.48.1]:42222 helo=mail.muc.de) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jKgdS-0005bI-UJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 04 Apr 2020 07:06:47 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail 77041 invoked by uid 3782); 4 Apr 2020 11:06:46 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (p2E5D54F1.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [46.93.84.241]) by localhost.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Sat, 04 Apr 2020 13:06:43 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 5393 invoked by uid 1000); 4 Apr 2020 11:06:43 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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: 2.1.23 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:246384 Archived-At: Hello, Dmitry. On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 18:22:00 +0300, Dmitry Gutov wrote: > On 01.04.2020 16:52, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > > This doesn't seem to affect starting up performance that badly. On my > > machine (a 3 yo AMD Ryzen) visiting xdisp.c (including the fontification > > of the first screenful of comments) is taking 0.18s. > Interesting. How do you measure it exactly? Do you kill the buffer > between tries? Using my macro time-it, I did: (time-it (find-file "..../src/xdisp.c") (sit-for 0)) . I think this was without the file yet being in the OS's file cache. Mind you, I have an nvme SSD. > I have a fast Intel CPU that is barely 2 years old (i9-8950HK), > system-configuration-options is "--with-x-toolkit=gtk3 'CFLAGS=-Og > -g3'", the build is from emacs-27 branch, recent revision. That's a debugging build, isn't it? That probably explains the difference. > With 'emacs -Q' it's a little faster, but still > (benchmark 1 '(progn (find-file "src/xdisp.c"))) > prints out > Elapsed time: 0.968598s (0.144805s in 8 GCs) Is that also measuring the time for redisplay? -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).