From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: emacs rendering comparisson between emacs23 and emacs26.3 Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2020 09:15:49 +0300 Message-ID: <835zeaqz8q.fsf@gnu.org> References: <679ab47b-6e3e-65e6-f955-be58d59ed092@yandex.ru> <83sghhss8v.fsf@gnu.org> <671b5b41-663d-5ab9-f022-dc6c5ce54dd0@yandex.ru> <83r1x1sqkx.fsf@gnu.org> <83lfn9s63n.fsf@gnu.org> <83h7xvqsgc.fsf@gnu.org> <90749329-ccb1-f96e-29c0-b4ecbb81d1d4@yandex.ru> <837dyrqews.fsf@gnu.org> <20200407201018.GD4009@ACM> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="124522"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: rudalics@gmx.at, rrandresf@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org, rms@gnu.org, dgutov@yandex.ru To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Apr 08 08:16:43 2020 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 1jM40w-000WJO-DS for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 08 Apr 2020 08:16:42 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:56476 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jM40v-0000N3-Dd for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 08 Apr 2020 02:16:41 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:59202) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jM40F-0008Ow-M0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Apr 2020 02:16:00 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:47114) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jM40E-0004CB-Et; Wed, 08 Apr 2020 02:15:58 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=2834 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1jM407-0003Gs-0Z; Wed, 08 Apr 2020 02:15:51 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20200407201018.GD4009@ACM> (message from Alan Mackenzie on Tue, 7 Apr 2020 20:10:18 +0000) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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:246637 Archived-At: > Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2020 20:10:18 +0000 > Cc: Dmitry Gutov , rudalics@gmx.at, rrandresf@gmail.com, > emacs-devel@gnu.org, rms@gnu.org > From: Alan Mackenzie > > OK, I'm on Line 8759, where I've got: > > else > cp->status = STATUS_READ_FAILED; > > (I haven't updated for a few days.) Is this the same place? Yup. > > FTR, this is in Emacs 27.0.90 built with -Og, but a -O2 compilation of > > Emacs 26.3 takes only slightly less time in this case. > > Is this not jit-lock-context-time? I have no idea. But if you are saying that this is "normal", then I disagree: I don't see why the change in fontification after DEL is instantaneous, while the change after typing 'e' takes such annoyingly long time. Is jit-lock-context-time not involved in the former? if so, why? > However, first setting font-lock-support-mode to nil, then > reinitialising font-lock, deleting then reinserting that "e", the line > after the else _never_ gets its (lack of) face back. So this is still rather a mystery, isn't it? Thanks.