From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dmitry Gutov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#58950: [PATCH] * lisp/subr.el (buffer-match-p): Optimise performance Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2023 15:01:17 +0200 Message-ID: <77d1e30d-a4a8-76fc-925d-9caad2906002@yandex.ru> References: <875yfyebi0.fsf@posteo.net> <87a6331xts.fsf@posteo.net> <1119f0ff-aacf-b41e-e7f7-b0a00132b35f@yandex.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="13281"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.4.2 Cc: Mattias =?UTF-8?Q?Engdeg=C3=A5rd?= , Philip Kaludercic , 58950@debbugs.gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Jan 05 14:02:34 2023 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@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 1pDPtC-0003Dh-5z for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 05 Jan 2023 14:02:34 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pDPsw-0001u3-Lf; Thu, 05 Jan 2023 08:02:22 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pDPsh-0001pT-NV for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Jan 2023 08:02:07 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pDPsg-0006Oj-HA for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Jan 2023 08:02:03 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pDPsg-0006Ku-36 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Jan 2023 08:02:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Dmitry Gutov Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2023 13:02:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 58950 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch Original-Received: via spool by 58950-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B58950.167292368824315 (code B ref 58950); Thu, 05 Jan 2023 13:02:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 58950) by debbugs.gnu.org; 5 Jan 2023 13:01:28 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50495 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pDPs7-0006K7-MR for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 05 Jan 2023 08:01:27 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-wm1-f51.google.com ([209.85.128.51]:36798) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1pDPs5-0006Jr-Vv for 58950@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 05 Jan 2023 08:01:26 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-wm1-f51.google.com with SMTP id c65-20020a1c3544000000b003cfffd00fc0so1253979wma.1 for <58950@debbugs.gnu.org>; Thu, 05 Jan 2023 05:01:25 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :sender:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Y+emXmhXhU/qq7sejEwXWMe0t13ZiVn5QEzyz9iaP/c=; b=ktXpw9cwwyHMZepbzmOwBCOZoxHvRNITA1rcO4Rd0n52Td4g7Ww5nXCj8j8IHC1Kbv b+TjwMHk4i0VR1ZIfBFYxzbS6Fe0naLzkx7Fm/OXHYUGxKivmUqTsV0Bxpp7/yRFWo78 WVmPZeq6AMq/EobvI44FkeK9g79z495Vkv9eh4RVap82nOcbt0YMaANBDMOvSnpwF4Sd zGLrChMal/D9wYFBYeC8aFZHXeKAH6+5EGf/0rEz8Y8ut9fGsc7mhiZDooED+aJZF1N2 roKajLhBZSOgZJKzy7C9K464Q8eou/cUs97opyk0dgmxPEYIELKU4jqibQoflwwAsdqC aS6w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :sender:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=Y+emXmhXhU/qq7sejEwXWMe0t13ZiVn5QEzyz9iaP/c=; b=xOaajKMzZf9ILAjOavasgdCkcDGo1SQF4OFMF1HGiLyi9RdhYeO25bkPu3DCwDCr6F z+M2aDQbbM01QnppeVM/hgj2462RrbjqxXwV3uSXKoM1Add0AQ7nAvelb2MS8BbSDp5u FjunSuHTzGTw5OlSZ0SEWx2dZ6gxJzX3N3UAt6X2VBbr4sdjyNq+E5tJZrDcNaDRcmz1 qwCAq9kOCX7UiQyf1jAoFUNOk+U3SsTqa9xc88vu4cWBIeYxk6cKApnEKBhBhhNJ9635 kxRzqo6mI1+/O6G+YSnx8rJfw9l05OjGBzKMi3+RsuDdSrVQT3FKfGZWrtkBGCHPbdXW ssGQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AFqh2kqAu4ldmZ39rKaz9X9AvgikFTOg7Y2Saom/y5qeOhKRlAkFL9DB 21GlB0qReakigPPNYZuy/ms= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMrXdXuykLKN9TbMMi6hoC9tnSD8pfXpb5OI0o9se+N+3yXfhuMfM0qLmLMhfGRMKc2DlLX/oDPXeQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:44d4:b0:3cf:7925:7a3 with SMTP id f20-20020a05600c44d400b003cf792507a3mr35945470wmo.24.1672923680224; Thu, 05 Jan 2023 05:01:20 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from [192.168.0.2] ([46.251.119.176]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id r42-20020a05600c322a00b003a6125562e1sm2046740wmp.46.2023.01.05.05.01.18 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 05 Jan 2023 05:01:19 -0800 (PST) Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:252596 Archived-At: On 05/01/2023 06:31, Stefan Monnier via Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors wrote: >>>> I'd like to let our language-level specialists to take the deeper look. > Do we have any reason to believe that the performance of > `buffer-match-p` is a problem in `display-buffer-alist`? > > The benchmark you quote seems to be fairly different from what > `display-buffer` does. I'm not surprised your optimization improves > this benchmark, but I'm wondering whether this use-case corresponds to > a real life situation (and if so which). I was also wondering that. >>>> On the last note, I'm curious how many buffers would it take to see a >>>> 50ms improvement in match-buffers' runtime when using the current >>>> project-kill-buffer-conditions's value, for example. > Also, where is `match-buffers` used? I only see it used in > `lisp/net/rcirc.el` in a way that can trivially be replaced with > something much more efficient. I suppose it could replace the use of dolist+project--buffer-check inside project--buffers-to-kill. But the main target of the patch under discussion is buffer-match-p, of course.