From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: martin rudalics Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs-26.0.91: switch-to-buffer-other-window runs too slowly (about 0.1s) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 23:41:57 +0200 Message-ID: <5AB96925.6080709@gmx.at> References: <83efk6g93z.fsf@gnu.org> <544b8346-bda9-45eb-9573-1d51d9f768b2@Spark> <83bmfag8gu.fsf@gnu.org> <87y3ie24z1.fsf@gmail.com> <87sh8m23tc.fsf@gmail.com> <87k1ty22p1.fsf@gmail.com> <837epyg30w.fsf@gnu.org> <83370mg0qj.fsf@gnu.org> <5AB94021.8080700@gmx.at> <83vadiek9y.fsf@gnu.org> <5AB94724.1020609@gmx.at> <83tvt2ej3g.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1522100470 19433 195.159.176.226 (26 Mar 2018 21:41:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 21:41:10 +0000 (UTC) Cc: monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Mar 26 23:41:05 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 1f0ZrU-0004wU-Km for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 23:41:04 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:59207 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f0ZtY-0006gv-0a for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 17:43:12 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40802) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f0Zsa-0006gT-Lb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 17:42:13 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f0ZsZ-0007o5-U0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 17:42:12 -0400 Original-Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.15]:39711) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f0ZsW-0007ip-3W; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 17:42:08 -0400 Original-Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([213.162.73.40]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx002 [212.227.17.190]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0M0y47-1eiDi91Ugp-00vB8Q; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 23:42:02 +0200 In-Reply-To: <83tvt2ej3g.fsf@gnu.org> X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:uh5rwIChpS56FwRvk+6Gv4hHnjlbHDJMMAV8f6p4Qd3LbikmnKn LQnZDYyDpHE87Do6fZ+/jpIzExGxqhCr+PdAU2snZowNYEakzeB2hkm3JuGaWxR25j5EwYQ mOQfKi0gP6WZyGxDAYfsS4BSInhAd3JqDm3ZMGaMivaZ/mDf3oMO5wBwNvh83OWIuzWOldJ Pqzxnka825vsiENRBcpQg== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:lH+tk2KKnT8=:kYheLoQEeRh8iqYEbGx3I7 fnulD5j1vCDvq5DanG3hQatU84UovbV5t7Fn/T3xRzGunzwZjv7ywAE3TIGdCUCnXdF5X7ZPd lQA70dAK+Gxcb9wpq0bqM9d79vWFcxz49EjTOvZtlS5V7dADrcKzmfwHqPhWo4vZSvcL6Tu2X 8VZjebqV2gkPCXPLAVAirE92AQ4hAZHvc6bFxbDAihHik9Kt2nlIkWHAYD++hOTMY8d+GaiQr mQyofx5cXVKFL0x49TlNZCzp5+j/XAhiGvBy6bzgRD+qvL86jaS484rrym3MBlWD9ngQSt4yd PvxP1Hzg7tmsxc0IdjCKmFDlRNn2kd+xmOMLVAepuRGnP0zjm8zop2JsQWAtPrmWHkUzm6mZz fBQ/asPh30NHbfizpfJl3587BsfylwS+GbsCMlH/7fH4hVnFnVZH318xUtCr1chxLlqgChM7f RyA4mauJsMmJ9FpyrfflLPzlUXq/clCcNZZbbxJEnluf2cblE17q6kXduRg3Z8md/j6ikmDwc 1L2z6IJYm1cr2nnliL8gmsPZXGlUDbm+14HEv1GoVd2/n0dCdyCMbeoOMbyLWeXqrQfrj4LwB I9zNAaY8lu+p7KLdkvl6mWI/jwj8YislMTwlXHjad1CfaN3LRbK0b3Ys/o9tkZ6AvZV8MYiGO iXWw/ETRwflzLpJsRXczfRyd+/qzLMkZmeGL/c+6pGAeYYRdHwikfdGPOQ+T9NRT2DGT/Tz3u PVZwYwn6ee4sQlnGzRJqb89AA9YIXrv3wocD0AcNpp7Wm450FixYraSLy6qqHobKeuj0ss1u X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 212.227.15.15 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:224077 Archived-At: > For the purposes of this discussion, I'll settle with a subset of my > question, viz.: when FRAME_VISIBLE_P returns non-zero, is it possible > that the frame is in fact not visible? > > If a non-zero value of FRAME_VISIBLE_P reliably tells us that the > frame is visible, then we can avoid waiting for MapNotify when > FRAME_VISIBLE_P returns non-zero at entry into x_make_frame_visible. > (This is what the original code circa Emacs 21 did, AFAIR.) I mentioned my concerns because I obviously had the same idea. My answer is simple: I think it's possible that FRAME_VISIBLE_P lies and we should disregard that. If it lies, it's a good occasion to find out and think of a fix for Emacs 27. And obviously I have no good ideas for Emacs 26. martin