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 08:43:06 +0200 Message-ID: <83vadso9ad.fsf@gnu.org> References: <834lldp18f.fsf@gnu.org> <9646341d-700b-4240-216b-8c0e753fa79f@arkona-technologies.de> <86d03e78-9984-f33e-a3f3-3faa4b34d78b@arkona-technologies.de> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1521441668 6437 195.159.176.226 (19 Mar 2018 06:41:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 06:41:08 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Sebastian Sturm Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Mar 19 07:41:04 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 1exoTe-0001YN-VK for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 07:41:03 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40496 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1exoVh-0003gi-NR for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 02:43:09 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55645) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1exoVb-0003gb-FY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 02:43:04 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1exoVW-0007Zw-Gk for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 02:43:03 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:49825) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1exoVW-0007Zq-Ci; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 02:42:58 -0400 Original-Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=1944 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1exoVV-0000dK-NH; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 02:42:58 -0400 In-reply-to: <86d03e78-9984-f33e-a3f3-3faa4b34d78b@arkona-technologies.de> (message from Sebastian Sturm on Mon, 19 Mar 2018 00:20:13 +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:223805 Archived-At: > From: Sebastian Sturm > Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 00:20:13 +0100 > > for the record, I just switched back to emacs master (no noverlay) and > the time reported by (benchmark-run 1000 (line-number-at-pos (point)) > increased by a factor of ~40, to 75-80s. At this level, editing is > unbearably slow. With the semantic highlighter disabled, the same > measurement yields ~2.5s (still painfully slow, but borderline usable), > so about the same time reported by the noverlay branch. You will have to explain why overlays and the semantic highlighter affect line-counting. How about presenting a profile produced by "M-x profiler-report"? And the timings you measure are 2.5 _milliseconds_ (the benchmark runs 1000 times), right? If so, I cannot understand why you say that's borderline usable, because IME such short times are imperceptible by humans. I guess some other factor is at work here, so I'd suggest to describe more details about your use case. > Since the time taken by line-number-at-pos seems to fluctuate wildly for > (to me) unknown reasons, I'll try and see if I can set up a systematic > way to collect reliable data. Yes, please do. I'm guessing there's some factor here that is important to consider.