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: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 09:23:57 +0200 Message-ID: <5AB9F18D.207@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> <83o9jadyn5.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 1522135351 30995 195.159.176.226 (27 Mar 2018 07:22:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 07:22:31 +0000 (UTC) To: Stefan Monnier , emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Mar 27 09:22:27 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 1f0iw4-0007ul-Rl for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 09:22:24 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60816 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f0iy6-00041N-57 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 03:24:30 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55716) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f0ixk-0003rd-6F for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 03:24:08 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f0ixj-0004yg-Fy for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 03:24:08 -0400 Original-Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.21]:43355) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f0ixj-0004yH-5g for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 03:24:07 -0400 Original-Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([213.162.73.124]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx102 [212.227.17.168]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0M3MAG-1eiv1n1cXo-00r1Ix; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 09:24:03 +0200 In-Reply-To: X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:mViTGQdnT/wtTHHJLBt4GilUI0zhUUb1+dBu7QjH+uXorZAYG5O rL4fJN2LvqHuxTZJ9yRm94CBh3sbyREZejKn+VmqO2rpEzeZYrfoAS9LpJdUrH/zojtfhfs KoSImWywACbAax/HSxGeOuLI4W3jF3QDLNQbQPmro2uGMA8FTV212MevDx59u1ldkgb3pEA l23S2qFjN+9UxAdK5bvjQ== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:JZ+CViWHb4o=:As7aYq5jmQxxPNI5mUfTWo e25f/+DrZRqM+uDQVnWI4MrB8r3vQalYa8MN8LFxGzAVfuuWY0LbRfdMPFqS8VQIWLT4F29jq tEVe1W1IPw+/tQ9iy9+VX19aCkO2jantXaiJd/ZL43dFYIvIpRSenIfgJfRzIpIFISuc8B0ME rRNysbM3S2tFLHiKqFWtvqcX7Y90g6sfZ6XS/gvo9wzcJ3R2AN3bTocBqkuExg4HRUEYUQdGf oQIzNHizDkFgGrLvl+BP6/X9pV4/iY3fNe+/PoQGAjO/oI/AzJAj49FKWSklt47xbEGnjR5cG a2hBCRUyqX7UbgNFK8iSJ7yD04o6rpkTXWymObrebtDzznl2jgY8xhU1OQuetIo5uzws1StYg MU5MLlCWG+V8ZP9BE48ojPK/ei4GD83KXCU+WjYHrd8geQSJ9Qf/sV3uUPJf0tqTS3OJ4oriR k7NaAfUvZrEBJ3f2dvpEML4wco39NQ6uEPFZKfH563PbuS7jCAm5+JBdTJq5eqexL4q0So6cD o58dpvaEJPMTQ+ePLeYqa/o9IcuzuKPkCiC7OgsdNiBN78zggSDiHMb1PBxf5G75LmEUue4Lf F57xhkqoRY1vPAbRzf8qwzYRrbkeCjKEw8AKwHr9+2pq6F2sVcRhYFEmRbdo/rKIqOYDB4Bc3 5ts1kreKZd9czsQlpv23er5wUJa1iThw/6OFb42TwP/DX31TydlkiAt0LXvjEBWL2GQKvAYq6 4tL3r+wJAmFr3Ai+4PIMAq9tDznBRLKMjgx4xciLRskCiE4iVChy5mblWMVvxDFcWLOepDP2 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 212.227.17.21 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:224093 Archived-At: > No, it's very much possible and easy, but if we're in such a situation > before display-buffer is called (i.e. it was not considered a problem > before we called display-buffer), why should we assume that > display-buffer should change it? The caller of 'display-buffer' may have selected an invisible or iconified frame. We nowhere rule out such a possibility. martin