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 23, so slow to refresh on Windows Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 12:13:48 +0300 Message-ID: <83zkzxa7xv.fsf@gnu.org> References: <8CCC3DAB0774A32-16F0-1536@web-mmc-d09.sysops.aol.com> <8CCC4332DEEAEEC-16F0-3DA0@web-mmc-d09.sysops.aol.com> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1274174731 8619 80.91.229.12 (18 May 2010 09:25:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 09:25:31 +0000 (UTC) Cc: bogossian@mail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Juanma Barranquero Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue May 18 11:25:29 2010 connect(): No such file or directory Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OEJ3F-0003Rp-GQ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 18 May 2010 11:25:25 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55882 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OEJ3E-00086g-Pa for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 18 May 2010 05:25:24 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=46386 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OEIs3-0000wt-A3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 May 2010 05:13:56 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OEIry-0007Yi-4F for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 May 2010 05:13:51 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout22.012.net.il ([80.179.55.172]:38095) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OEIrx-0007YY-Ti for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 May 2010 05:13:46 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0L2L00C00YXR1Y00@a-mtaout22.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 May 2010 12:13:44 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.126.197.161]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0L2L00AH0YYVPK40@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Tue, 18 May 2010 12:13:44 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:124884 Archived-At: > From: Juanma Barranquero > Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 09:25:28 +0200 > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > > On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 01:52, wrote: > > > No, I've done more testing and so far I haven't noticed any slowdown with > > normal files (ie. files without long lines). > > So, I think we can assume the performance issue is specific to files with > > long lines. > > Assuming you use continuation lines, and not truncation, does the > speed improve setting `cache-long-line-scans' to t? Note that in a test file with only one line, this could give skewed results.