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 11:07:26 +0300 Message-ID: <83o9jfi5a9.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> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1521792374 11060 195.159.176.226 (23 Mar 2018 08:06:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 08:06:14 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Sebastian Sturm Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Mar 23 09:06:09 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 1ezHiD-0002oD-D1 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 09:06:09 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36495 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ezHkG-0005lM-Nz for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 04:08:16 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51940) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ezHjZ-0005kU-UI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 04:07:38 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ezHjS-00055A-6Y for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 04:07:33 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:37742) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ezHjS-000555-2x; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 04:07:26 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=1524 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1ezHjR-0002Wl-I6; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 04:07:25 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Sebastian Sturm on Fri, 23 Mar 2018 00:11:16 +0100) 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:223938 Archived-At: > From: Sebastian Sturm > Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 00:11:16 +0100 > > since noverlay performs so well, I guess the technical issue here is > already solved and I'll just have to wait for it to make it into the > master branch. As Stefan points out, the overlays are not the reason. The reason are the number of markers in the buffer; each overlay defines 2 markers. And there could be many markers in a buffer even if there are no overlays. Btw, why do you have so many overlays in these buffers? Is this part of lsp-mode implementation, or is the reason unrelated?