From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Gregory Heytings Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Time to merge scratch/correct-warning-pos into master, perhaps? Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2022 08:59:00 +0000 Message-ID: <6a5bb5a08b3d764611f9@heytings.org> References: <83mtjwzwkb.fsf@gnu.org> <87r198ytog.fsf@gnus.org> <87zgnvyb5y.fsf@gnus.org> <87bl03j10s.fsf@gnus.org> <9D116A4B-622F-4C80-83E6-2CDD7ED9AD25@acm.org> <58bb8030d532070ed420@heytings.org> <838rv7mzn4.fsf@gnu.org> <58bb8030d5ec3a6bde9f@heytings.org> <837darmygd.fsf@gnu.org> <58bb8030d59733b52b8d@heytings.org> <83r18zkmd5.fsf@gnu.org> <835yq9ls7j.fsf@gnu.org> <058b682b11240176288f@heytings.org> <83h79tjd2f.fsf@gnu.org> <058b682b11f58780b580@heytings.org> <83v8y8ij39.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="1119"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: mattiase@acm.org, larsi@gnus.org, acm@muc.de, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Jan 25 10:04:26 2022 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 1nCHkX-000AZo-HT for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 25 Jan 2022 10:04:25 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42086 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nCHkW-0007hq-HZ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 25 Jan 2022 04:04:24 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:53092) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nCHfO-0003iz-3O for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Jan 2022 03:59:06 -0500 Original-Received: from heytings.org ([95.142.160.155]:40764) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nCHfM-0008Fw-Aj; Tue, 25 Jan 2022 03:59:05 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=heytings.org; s=20220101; t=1643101140; bh=A27z85jNtLnQE8DdVXWu/s/ctENBAHjYaPnxnHsBI78=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:References:From; b=2vmP2kBhMFaDLp6RV/03tbFMykY66OAk2wtUrnp8NpOU79ctJMi18h6Y4r9Jpo3c8 f5JZJjZDj6F058PAksSgN+soVBWbXsQYp93/oGZWQKniuDNH8PG6ezCjDEPXNmkzic r5LtZcZ3QUKnHY4p/bM3LpN1GeTbeFVekGYBYvSI24UA8YzvnUW0dC5BwyPFEImPtE 7CDLQRjpxEMlc9AgWrmOxZUaW/Tjotb9oOTQPQJ5terscN18YlH7bS6ciPC4gP8yXD W3N60HgdtUL43LqRv0HHmwo5rjdg4vDkAQ644jDo0umKFtV3uiKptUIUCpIm7EL1mK SZFfdBEvX860A== In-Reply-To: <83v8y8ij39.fsf@gnu.org> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=95.142.160.155; envelope-from=gregory@heytings.org; helo=heytings.org X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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:285347 Archived-At: >> At least the test suite is not a micro-benchmark. I exercises a large >> subset of Emacs features, and I don't see anything in these ~110K lines >> of Elisp that make them significantly different from other Elisp >> programs. My conclusion is that Emacs is now, on average, about 10% >> slower. > > Your conclusion is premature. While micro-benchmarks don't represent a > typical Emacs usage, neither are the tests in the test suite. They are > run in batch mode, and the don't involve important Emacs subsystems, > such as the display engine. > > So the actual slowdown in "normal" usage could be quite different from > what the test suite measures. > I think you understood what I meant: bytecode execution in Emacs is now, on average, about 10% slower. Are there other benchmarks (not micro-benchmarks) that could be used to reach what you would consider a mature conclusion?