From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Noam Postavsky Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Regarding performance issues with the Emacs 25.1 Windows-build Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 11:55:04 -0500 Message-ID: References: <1478680445.2214391.782069929.51F43E52@webmail.messagingengine.com> <83shr0fwsu.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1478710793 16514 195.159.176.226 (9 Nov 2016 16:59:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 16:59:53 +0000 (UTC) Cc: jostein@kjonigsen.net, Emacs developers To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Nov 09 17:59:49 2016 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 1c4WDd-00011B-3c for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 09 Nov 2016 17:59:25 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:41176 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c4WDg-0007j2-8V for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 09 Nov 2016 11:59:28 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47072) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c4W9c-0004bX-1D for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 09 Nov 2016 11:55:18 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c4W9V-00012e-Qb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 09 Nov 2016 11:55:16 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-yw0-x235.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4002:c05::235]:32773) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c4W9R-0000rz-CF; Wed, 09 Nov 2016 11:55:05 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-yw0-x235.google.com with SMTP id r204so212141773ywb.0; Wed, 09 Nov 2016 08:55:05 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=ccbtT+AAfRZqZ70Bavn1xPF1MfW7Z2M5HKHzNTiyspI=; b=Z9rqzHCOQKwX5eKUFsZSxMITOt82VPaqO1PJhYup6pUju/vbo7jDM28PXm29lrgpS5 qoxnBnzs361fREJchDJd9VlRbNZKN53Pv60I8GPppg7nygzNy9QPIzfZ3J2RhCjuCQK8 iPFUm2SEpjN7/GrNc5Gk7fZfyMZKfOkNTLujo/kpr6FuYUg0S7BdGAKHOV+EqzbhAl1Y lNE/mgVHKeeJ7FR316mWVXfbvMXl6wegfru+2bQD1RVF7WQpBM3MY+8rpUkI4YNrZmhr G61jtVXtCqClft0un4f2fYcn56DImOCKJh2JnimeCFQ2OYyUEmUk/sf23phghBKLKrkZ 02ug== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ccbtT+AAfRZqZ70Bavn1xPF1MfW7Z2M5HKHzNTiyspI=; b=BOosSyBhwv2eS2BHRTQmNPAGvTfw873PTJQYpRS9lZRG/gin+CukqQg9qPd6cO2Wwu 9HFBHC/6MrbjcL63rGowoAkqFk26+aS66smqvXWnnclE3I76BTWPIdgOCBjhWzNbaMsO /o8qIY0GrQRM0a+HdXtzt15RSjqye4eYv45d3TANz4iKO0ztYzvRmKH43ZkvYD37gVqO hPhPo+e/MnX2+zk+SpycfvaGW4TSTfAYhU7SPi/NzmdFArR6yFVUeQ4tFHP3GwBZodU3 a/BVRbjFWvrkAvdgBiBDw2K6JMtGwR9iGw+548AlYXVVVL+ndNuPuRLEnU2fitOP2pTe NaLQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvcbyAfcGCutm/Y8xcGGPVVQSCokBFJ9V/B5UvDKSEA/seLB1w0QL0q08LqcmwaICDkd8IZjmobVavaEew== X-Received: by 10.157.54.5 with SMTP id w5mr353993otb.211.1478710504559; Wed, 09 Nov 2016 08:55:04 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.157.4.86 with HTTP; Wed, 9 Nov 2016 08:55:04 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <83shr0fwsu.fsf@gnu.org> X-Google-Sender-Auth: pVsO90RhsGJApU46G4lopow6cPY X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2607:f8b0:4002:c05::235 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:209307 Archived-At: On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 11:22 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> How was the Windows-version built? Was it built by the same people, >> using the same setup and the same toolchain? Or was something done >> differently this time? > > The answer is probably that it was not built the same, but I very much > doubt that the differences could explain a twofold performance hit. > > FWIW, my binaries were built by myself using the same compilation > options (-O2 optimization), but I upgraded my compiler from GCC 4.8.1 > to 5.3.0 between the two versions of Emacs. Again, I very much doubt > that this could explain any significant performance differences. I think the problem is that the 25.1 build is not optimized: I did M-x report-emacs-bug in each, notice that 25.1 has a setting for CFLAGS which doesn't include -O2, while 24.5 doesn't have one (and hence uses the default, which I believe does include -O2). In GNU Emacs 25.1.1 (x86_64-w64-mingw32) of 2016-09-17 built on LAPHROAIG Configured using: 'configure --without-dbus --without-compress-install CFLAGS=-static' In GNU Emacs 24.5.1 (i686-pc-mingw32) of 2015-04-11 on LEG570 Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 6.3.9600 Configured using: `configure --prefix=/c/usr --host=i686-pc-mingw32'