From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#6365: bidi data structure inefficiencies Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 23:04:54 +0200 Message-ID: <83fwj5hlvt.fsf@gnu.org> References: Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1317935342 21650 80.91.229.12 (6 Oct 2011 21:09:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 21:09:02 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 6365@debbugs.gnu.org To: Glenn Morris Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Oct 06 23:08:57 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RBvBZ-0004cX-Ka for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 06 Oct 2011 23:08:57 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42499 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RBvBY-000085-NF for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 06 Oct 2011 17:08:56 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:59979) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RBvBV-00007j-Fk for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Oct 2011 17:08:54 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RBvBU-0007P2-5x for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Oct 2011 17:08:53 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:45136) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RBvBU-0007Ow-4Q for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Oct 2011 17:08:52 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RBvBe-0000X0-3Q for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Oct 2011 17:09:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 21:09:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 6365 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 6365-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B6365.13179353362031 (code B ref 6365); Thu, 06 Oct 2011 21:09:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 6365) by debbugs.gnu.org; 6 Oct 2011 21:08:56 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RBvBY-0000Wh-7p for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 06 Oct 2011 17:08:56 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il ([80.179.55.166]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RBvBW-0000WV-Ks for 6365@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 06 Oct 2011 17:08:55 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0LSN00M00X34TJ00@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for 6365@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 06 Oct 2011 23:04:51 +0200 (IST) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.124.91.138]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0LSN00M6VX82C2B0@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Thu, 06 Oct 2011 23:04:51 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 17:09:02 -0400 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 1) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:52317 Archived-At: > From: Glenn Morris > Cc: 6365@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 16:51:50 -0400 > > Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > Thanks for the critical review and suggestions. I started a > > discussion thread on emacs-devel about this, because I'm not sure > > fixing this is a straight-forward matter. I will implement whatever > > conclusions are reached there as part of solving this bug report. > > Did anything happen with this? See the discussion that started here: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2010-06/msg00164.html AFAIU, the conclusion was that there are no evident optimizations, and that only profiling the current code against an alternative can tell which one is better. FWIW, I don't plan working o this any time soon.