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: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 16:28:58 +0200 Message-ID: <83bmfknnpx.fsf@gnu.org> References: > <834lldp18f.fsf@gnu.org>> <83tvtco8xl.fsf@gnu.org> <83d100nrpg.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1521469678 19763 195.159.176.226 (19 Mar 2018 14:27:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 14:27:58 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Mar 19 15:27:53 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 1exvlO-00050F-Fg for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 15:27:50 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42268 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1exvnR-0006mk-O7 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 10:29:57 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43248) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1exvmP-00069z-AO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 10:28:55 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1exvmM-0006IQ-7m for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 10:28:53 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:56912) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1exvmM-0006II-5A; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 10:28:50 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=2870 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1exvmL-0002OF-J8; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 10:28:50 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Stefan Monnier on Mon, 19 Mar 2018 09:43:12 -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:223816 Archived-At: > From: Stefan Monnier > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 09:43:12 -0400 > > BTW, when thinking about how to avoid this loop's worst case (regardless > if it's the source of the current problem), I was thinking that we could > probably make that worst case even less likely by replacing the > hardcoded "50" with a limit that grows as the loop progresses. > > The patch below should make sure that the total number of iterations > (through markers + through chars) is no more than 2*buffer-size, no matter > how many markers there are. > [ Rather than incrementing by 1 we should ideally increment by > a number that corresponds to how much slower is each iteration through > markers compared to the iteration through chars, but I have no idea > what that number would typically be. ] > > WDYT? Could be a good idea, but I suggest to time its improvement before we decide. I've seen a few surprises in that area.