From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Noam Postavsky Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#19716: Excessive Windows registry accesses Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 20:44:55 -0500 Message-ID: <87fu8mf0x4.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> References: <54C92B51.3090704@resiak.org> <83a912ogzo.fsf@gnu.org> <54C94F69.3090403@resiak.org> <83zj92megb.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1512697585 20981 195.159.176.226 (8 Dec 2017 01:46:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 01:46:25 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.0.90 (gnu/linux) Cc: djc@resiak.org, 19716@debbugs.gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Dec 08 02:46:13 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@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 1eN7jv-00056n-2u for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 08 Dec 2017 02:46:11 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:35196 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eN7k2-0006Bg-Ck for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 07 Dec 2017 20:46:18 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58139) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eN7jp-0006AO-MV for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Dec 2017 20:46:06 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eN7jm-0008Lv-Jn for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Dec 2017 20:46:05 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:42498) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eN7jm-0008Lq-GB for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Dec 2017 20:46:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eN7jm-00013C-8x for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Dec 2017 20:46:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Noam Postavsky Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2017 01:46:02 +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=B19716.151269750532666 (code B ref 19716); Fri, 08 Dec 2017 01:46:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 19716) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Dec 2017 01:45:05 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51179 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eN7ir-0008UK-4g for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 07 Dec 2017 20:45:05 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-it0-f53.google.com ([209.85.214.53]:40137) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eN7ip-0008Pw-Ks; Thu, 07 Dec 2017 20:45:03 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-it0-f53.google.com with SMTP id f190so1542169ita.5; Thu, 07 Dec 2017 17:45:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version; bh=q27yFf4vw+kBIoRv4APsHznAXw5VVKNFAPSgQgN42rs=; b=EIH+stSOutRX2bR5LXi/q+xtC7nuYtXTnuKkpa3mPknQE1gHU22Pb8WZQR+ZTfWyWZ l48BtERjJAMPrO5BBnhFklg9w5I4qoBzJ+EW9h+d500GX4vcsMnqTFWKTSbbziorZUH+ gE89UubfKFkghW3ykCmTj/e8E5bZWkpfKo3Dg04Po6RLP08+c+gTmPaRvCZHgtIRKReH lIWW2yZGOMSJWTE7vT1UCHOPj+YBaq1u0CrY18jyGt5rZ9zE0hzQqLA3iGZonVEc/RvA DC1aKoRA8RUXxa4Qm7/4iJqJvvUACootm9BTyGi5BXAUpLlNtLlwG6i2I56cRDUg6645 NwxQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date :in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent:mime-version; bh=q27yFf4vw+kBIoRv4APsHznAXw5VVKNFAPSgQgN42rs=; b=FifEdwbIXWUVBUGBT5qj7fHQyPdoUoqgHokvrnpXNSWzAwJCJMKMzCOVyIEZ6jiF9D PNYwYuFppagDeXz/M7Svo/y4G1OrSLanncraYIk7w6FbuG0ejcKHVEu/v0JtNNcK++v4 XqKOxZdGAM9Yx0dVc8qgHHB9cyGSLSoYxqWAqsTDi6AZcwqy9JwSIMh6n6gwJNlTg3Or fCnocpcU3M9kzVwflmCCsNX9A8bRGbJtdHRE2cT5rpxSgplRVrWkaFXmkaJGS/ChhrvV 2Hsw87eDk+xNfD5S6iwW7UiIk3Wh3oAdiM9RKwOvcKzQ1JdtM2bpYZlDwCyQoumWmBwO cV5w== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mLlnNOE4TMaFvR2viEbbvtkxEj6K57NXz/k8vLMoS6+WQqccW+l nPgA3u0e13W5dwBR+r64kEghqw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMZKoyx9lAvJr2uAAHI4eYWb87UGPVU78C/CN9WgmTbTLROadTg2gpPoN/mnSetwN3sEIQZglA== X-Received: by 10.107.52.140 with SMTP id b134mr12964338ioa.291.1512697497951; Thu, 07 Dec 2017 17:44:57 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from zebian ([45.2.119.34]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id e68sm915331ite.0.2017.12.07.17.44.56 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Thu, 07 Dec 2017 17:44:57 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <83zj92megb.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Thu, 29 Jan 2015 05:51:48 +0200") X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 208.118.235.43 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" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:140794 Archived-At: tags 19716 wontfix close 19716 quit Eli Zaretskii writes: >> 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. Seems no data is forthcoming.