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#19716: Excessive Windows registry accesses Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 05:51:48 +0200 Message-ID: <83zj92megb.fsf@gnu.org> References: <54C92B51.3090704@resiak.org> <83a912ogzo.fsf@gnu.org> <54C94F69.3090403@resiak.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1422503595 30574 80.91.229.3 (29 Jan 2015 03:53:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 03:53:15 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 19716@debbugs.gnu.org To: djc@resiak.org Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jan 29 04:53:11 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@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 1YGgAI-0004sa-1Y for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 04:53:10 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:57565 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YGgAH-0006fs-Ex for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 22:53:09 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58440) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YGgAE-0006eV-3c for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 22:53:06 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YGgAA-0006yX-Qc for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 22:53:06 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:37306) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YGgAA-0006yT-Mk for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 22:53:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YGgAA-0002bd-HN for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 22:53:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 03:53:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 19716 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 19716-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B19716.14225035239946 (code B ref 19716); Thu, 29 Jan 2015 03:53:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 19716) by debbugs.gnu.org; 29 Jan 2015 03:52:03 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56779 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YGg9D-0002aL-26 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 22:52:03 -0500 Original-Received: from mtaout23.012.net.il ([80.179.55.175]:59061) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YGg9A-0002Zh-7o for 19716@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 28 Jan 2015 22:52:00 -0500 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout23.012.net.il by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0NIX009005XCOW00@a-mtaout23.012.net.il> for 19716@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 05:51:53 +0200 (IST) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0NIX009FX6QHJL90@a-mtaout23.012.net.il>; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 05:51:53 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: <54C94F69.3090403@resiak.org> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x 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:98854 Archived-At: > Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 22:06:49 +0100 > From: PK > > > Anyway, why do you think this [duplicated identical OpenKey accesses] is a bug? > > Because it suggests faulty logic to me. Normally if I were looking for a > resource and either finding it or not, I'd keep the outcome the first time > and use that outcome. (Not found? Don't look again. Found? Use what was > found.) The Registry is a place that can change outside Emacs control. So the fact we didn't find there something doesn't make sure it won't be found on the next access. > If it's cheap to make those more than 3600 duplicate registry accesses, > then I suppose there's nothing wrong with it. (I tend to suspect that very > little in Windows is cheap, but I haven't measured the cost of those > calls.) You seem to hint that it's logic transliterated from X, which > *does* have cheap access, and I can see the value in not fiddling with > logic that works. Still... X resources can be put into the Registry whenever the user wants, and should work starting from then. Please do time these accesses. I don't think they are expensive, but if your data shows otherwise, we could look into this. (And please keep the bug address on the CC list.)