From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs pretest -- electric-pair-mode change Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2014 10:53:06 +0300 Message-ID: <83ha69a5ul.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87d2h0ujls.fsf_-_@kitaj.lan> <87sipujhq2.fsf@kitaj.lan> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1396597990 15734 80.91.229.3 (4 Apr 2014 07:53:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 07:53:10 +0000 (UTC) Cc: monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: joaotavora@gmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jo=E3o_T=E1vora?=) Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Apr 04 09:53:04 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WVyvw-0006DB-KD for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 04 Apr 2014 09:53:04 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:48294 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WVyvw-0001MM-Ab for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 04 Apr 2014 03:53:04 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51726) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WVyvp-0001KQ-Au for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 04 Apr 2014 03:53:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WVyvk-0004wh-4c for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 04 Apr 2014 03:52:57 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout23.012.net.il ([80.179.55.175]:46853) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WVyvj-0004wS-SW for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 04 Apr 2014 03:52:52 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout23.012.net.il by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0N3H00700XNW0K00@a-mtaout23.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 04 Apr 2014 10:52:50 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0N3H007N9XW10Q00@a-mtaout23.012.net.il>; Fri, 04 Apr 2014 10:52:50 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: <87sipujhq2.fsf@kitaj.lan> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 X-Received-From: 80.179.55.175 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:171298 Archived-At: > From: joaotavora@gmail.com (Jo=E3o T=E1vora) > Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2014 21:11:49 +0100 > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org >=20 > Stefan Monnier writes: >=20 > >>> [ Unrelated: it's odd that the speed should depend on the OS. = ] > >> I'm using two relatively similar dual-core machines. In windows = I use > > Ah, so the difference is in the way they're compiled. >=20 > Of course, scheduling aside, in the end that's always true :-). Scheduling is not really relevant here, since Emacs has only one thread that runs Lisp, and its other threads, if there are any, don't run any computation-intensive tasks that could yield user-visible speed differences. > I might have misunderstood Eli Zaretskii's: >=20 > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2014-03/msg00930.h= tml That just describes how Windows binaries are compiled, but says nothing about their speed relative to other systems. > But in general, is the machine-code for windows builds exactly the = same > (or very similar) as linux for things involved in these operations? It's the same compiler (GCC) and similar or identical machine architectures, so I don't expect very different code. Optimizations change things, of course, but only by a factor of about 2. Any greater speed difference is due to something else. > If so, how can I check the compile flags of a build? "M-: system-configuration-options RET" > Because mine really is slower. My OSX build is also much slower, > FWIW, not as slow as windows tho. Again, if the slow-down is more than twice, it's not the compiler switches. You should also compare the CPU speed for a single core. Or just rebuild the same code with different optimizations and see if you get the slower/faster speed.