From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=93scar_Fuentes?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: igc, macOS avoiding signals Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2024 14:50:05 +0100 Message-ID: <87pllbvrw2.fsf@telefonica.net> References: <87seq8m0r6.fsf@protonmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="430"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Cancel-Lock: sha1:NDNjFXl0oMApmoUBnp0IySaBRMQ= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Dec 28 15:09:56 2024 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1tRXVr-000Abs-Ow for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 28 Dec 2024 15:09:55 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tRXV0-0004Jc-2K; Sat, 28 Dec 2024 09:09:02 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tRXCo-0008MI-Hm for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 28 Dec 2024 08:50:14 -0500 Original-Received: from ciao.gmane.io ([116.202.254.214]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tRXCm-0004Hy-VT for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 28 Dec 2024 08:50:14 -0500 Original-Received: from list by ciao.gmane.io with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1tRXCj-00037Q-OD for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 28 Dec 2024 14:50:09 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Received-SPF: pass client-ip=116.202.254.214; envelope-from=ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; helo=ciao.gmane.io X-Spam_score_int: -16 X-Spam_score: -1.7 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.7 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.156, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 28 Dec 2024 09:09:00 -0500 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:327267 Archived-At: Gerd Möllmann writes: >>> After reverting the commit, it's feeling smoother again. >> >> Entirely possible. Let's measure it. > > I'm sorry, but I pass. It's too time-consuming for me. Maybe someone > else using macOS can do that. I just wanted to make you aware of this. Is it difficult to implement a way to measure some relevant metrics? Something related to UI responsiveness would be great. For instance, record the time from each interactive command start to command end (or, better, until Emacs is idle again, to account for commands accumulating on the queue). Then we can perform some statistical analysis on that info. I'm afraid that if we start discussing personal perceptions we will devote a lot of time trying to fine-adjust parameters.