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: State of the overlay tree branch? Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 15:40:36 +0300 Message-ID: <83a7uzhsmz.fsf@gnu.org> References: <834lldp18f.fsf@gnu.org> <9646341d-700b-4240-216b-8c0e753fa79f@arkona-technologies.de> <86d03e78-9984-f33e-a3f3-3faa4b34d78b@arkona-technologies.de> <83vadso9ad.fsf@gnu.org> <5155d5e2-6b5c-581e-89fe-4f3af717304f@arkona-technologies.de> <4c82fcbd-961a-c6ca-b1f0-6b85665cb339@arkona-technologies.de> <83o9jfi5a9.fsf@gnu.org> <83efkbi2hb.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1521808805 7552 195.159.176.226 (23 Mar 2018 12:40:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 12:40:05 +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 Mar 23 13:40:01 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 1ezLzF-0001qs-7w for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 13:40:01 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:37890 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ezM1I-00026o-Mk for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 08:42:08 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38888) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ezLzo-0001lY-EG for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 08:40:40 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ezLzm-0005Lb-TO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 08:40:36 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:54196) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ezLzm-0005LP-Lr; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 08:40:34 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=2059 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1ezLzm-00016H-48; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 08:40:34 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Stefan Monnier on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 08:12:41 -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:223959 Archived-At: > From: Stefan Monnier > Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 08:12:41 -0400 > > > Also, what about my suggestion to count lines in a relative manner, > > using count-lines from a line with a known number? You never replied > > to that suggestion. > > FWIW, I believe in his case most of the time is spent outside of the > actual "count the lines" (aka forward-line) code, so counting fewer > lines because we start from a more nearby position probably won't help > very much. I'm not sure, because the profile indicates memrchr is a significant runner-up in the CPU time usage.