From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Split `simple.el'? Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2018 21:52:06 +0300 Message-ID: <837epk182x.fsf@gnu.org> References: <5f1e960c-483f-4902-b4c2-b7a4ca3b04f4@default> <87sh89fsxl.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <87o9iw3lak.fsf@linux-m68k.org> <83lge021r1.fsf@gnu.org> <83efjs1nnc.fsf@gnu.org> <83bmew1mu5.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1523040690 17101 195.159.176.226 (6 Apr 2018 18:51:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2018 18:51:30 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Apr 06 20:51:26 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 1f4WSL-0004JQ-FK for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 06 Apr 2018 20:51:25 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:47378 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f4WUR-0001H2-3c for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 06 Apr 2018 14:53:35 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37707) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f4WT6-0000zp-5u for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Apr 2018 14:52:13 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f4WT3-0002wD-3n for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Apr 2018 14:52:12 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:56143) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1f4WT2-0002vs-VH; Fri, 06 Apr 2018 14:52:09 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=1680 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1f4WT2-0006pU-CA; Fri, 06 Apr 2018 14:52:08 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Stefan Monnier on Fri, 06 Apr 2018 14:18:10 -0400) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e 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:224410 Archived-At: > From: Stefan Monnier > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2018 14:18:10 -0400 > > > Actually, this might be more fair: > > M-: (length (x-list-fonts "-*-*-normal-*-*-*-13-*-*-*-*-*-iso10646-1")) RET > > where the "13" part could need a change, if (face-font 'default) > > reports a different pixel-width of the default font on your system. > > OK, I just tried it on my office's 2006 mac-mini (Core 2 Duo T7600) > where the above says it has 437 fonts installed (removing the iso10646 > constraint brings it up to 614): I get 1244 and 1703, respectively, almost 3 times as many. > So a "normal" start takes ~0.7s and visiting the hello file brings it to > ~1.5s hence adding less than a second. I get 0.48s and 10.26s elapsed respectively, with 6s CPU time usage for visiting HELLO. > I expect 500 fonts is not considered large, since I'm not particularly > interested in typography and have installed fairly few fonts above those > that get installed automatically with a "typical" Gnome desktop. > > But to justify a delay of more than 10s on a non-ancient system, you'd > need to have at least 10 times as many fonts. Is that really what's > going on, or is there something else at play? I have three time as many fonts, and Emacs on Windows checks 2 font back-ends before it gives up on characters that don't have any font supporting them. The rest is OS differences regarding enumerating fonts and caching them (or lack thereof) by the font back-end. As for "ancient", this is a 6 year-old core i7 box. But I don't think CPU power is the main cost driver here, because I get the same times from optimized and non-optimized builds.