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 21:27:25 +0000 Message-ID: <6a5bb5a08b5ba0712eae@heytings.org> References: <835yq9ls7j.fsf@gnu.org> <058b682b11240176288f@heytings.org> <83h79tjd2f.fsf@gnu.org> <058b682b11f58780b580@heytings.org> <83v8y8ij39.fsf@gnu.org> <6a5bb5a08b3d764611f9@heytings.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="31986"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: mattiase@acm.org, larsi@gnus.org, Eli Zaretskii , Stefan Monnier , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Tue Jan 25 22:28:02 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 1nCTMA-00083L-Kf for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 25 Jan 2022 22:28:02 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:33580 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nCTM9-00026v-LU for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Tue, 25 Jan 2022 16:28:01 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:52412) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nCTLd-0001Qd-AC for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Jan 2022 16:27:29 -0500 Original-Received: from heytings.org ([95.142.160.155]:41686) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nCTLb-0005Wh-OU; Tue, 25 Jan 2022 16:27:29 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=heytings.org; s=20220101; t=1643146046; bh=xWf9MHT1ITGRYBehkJ0W6bbWVCtMCfku8AYm/jJbcc8=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:References:From; b=ghufcUU7GSrgfLUdcxVvJIYsggX2dg7vKoF9WgAMJ2c2XeyWtraUwN6qgXwQHIPZG pAX8odX6ZUNHe8LJNsUCb+GRHxDPzB9XIY5p/iTe7JqeKv4hdfvXwSmODn43bgw6Js OQ+suiBUVDyI7ndy6tt4gWc0rsDvM3k/SpFIRmEGL876PcsdeAJyhpYfQEVTfhWlLa AMtiKPMHpYoGGiJdS3Sei2i8fLAZ1q18/wqM8LCo77goZ/3lYGmqVJFdzo/2ItvDdL P0fxLIftNDcEvrJcUU29GF9edS439hNB2UYSqPwfDfBLHdixyCV9pCIazEO+KCfN7N 2z+T3zomXM4xQ== In-Reply-To: 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:285397 Archived-At: > > I've just tried timing $ make -j17 check on an up to date master, and a > master two - four weeks old, both configured the same, with native > compilation. Much of the run time was taken by native compilation. > > The two times were 42.966s and 48.547s. That's a difference of just > under 13%. Not a systematic comparison, since make check may have got > bigger in the last few weeks. > Which is consistent with the results I reported: about 40% of the time of make check is used for byte-compilation, which is slowed down by ~17.5%, and the rest is execution, which is slowed down by ~11%. > > I don't think Gregory has ever been specific about what precisely he has > timed, and how. > Of course I have. I timed make check, which everyone can do, and which you just did. > > There is no "all" in the 10% slow down. That is a measure of the > slowdown of $ make check, nothing else. > It's the time to execute ~110K lines of Elisp, exercising various parts of Emacs. It's IMO a much more significant number than an ad-hoc micro-benchmark. It's perhaps not the only one to take into account, but it cannot be ignored either. > > But nobody else cared enough about the boostrap time to bother putting > in the use of the byte-compiled compiler in early bootstrap until I did > a week or so ago. > You may have seen that this optimization has no effect without --with-native-compilation. This may explain that.