From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard M Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs,gmane.emacs.pretest.bugs Subject: bug#2445: 23.0.90; file name completion GCs a lot Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:18:25 -0400 Message-ID: References: Reply-To: rms@gnu.org, 2445@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1237416247 1437 80.91.229.12 (18 Mar 2009 22:44:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 22:44:07 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-pretest-bug@gnu.org, 2445@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Mar 18 23:45:23 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Lk4Vk-0007ez-Pq for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 18 Mar 2009 23:45:21 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51089 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Lk4UO-0000Xy-Dm for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:43:56 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Lk4UJ-0000XQ-7Q for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:43:51 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Lk4UE-0000Tr-PW for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:43:50 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=60518 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Lk4UE-0000Tj-Io for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:43:46 -0400 Original-Received: from rzlab.ucr.edu ([138.23.92.77]:34782) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Lk4UD-00006D-LS for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:43:45 -0400 Original-Received: from rzlab.ucr.edu (rzlab.ucr.edu [127.0.0.1]) by rzlab.ucr.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id n2IMhhkZ002762; Wed, 18 Mar 2009 15:43:43 -0700 Original-Received: (from debbugs@localhost) by rzlab.ucr.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id n2IMP6hm030100; Wed, 18 Mar 2009 15:25:06 -0700 X-Loop: owner@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com Resent-From: Richard M Stallman Resent-To: bug-submit-list@donarmstrong.com Resent-CC: Emacs Bugs Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 22:25:06 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: owner@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com X-Emacs-PR-Message: followup 2445 X-Emacs-PR-Package: emacs X-Emacs-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 2445-submit@emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com id=B2445.123741471528351 (code B ref 2445); Wed, 18 Mar 2009 22:25:06 +0000 Original-Received: (at 2445) by emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com; 18 Mar 2009 22:18:35 +0000 X-Spam-Bayes: score:0.5 Bayes not run. spammytokens:Tokens not available. hammytokens:Tokens not available. Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org (fencepost.gnu.org [140.186.70.10]) by rzlab.ucr.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id n2IMIQE4028336; Wed, 18 Mar 2009 15:18:27 -0700 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Lk45h-00059T-EL; Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:18:25 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Stefan Monnier on Wed, 18 Mar 2009 09:40:44 -0400) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:43:50 -0400 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:26469 gmane.emacs.pretest.bugs:24152 Archived-At: Indeed, the new partial-completion code triggers an inefficiency in file-name-completion. I've installed a patch which should significantly reduce the problem (at least in my test case, tho I had to use a directory with 100K files to reproduce a problem that seems similar to yours). I think you fixed it. The cases that were slow before are fast now. Thanks.