From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Time to merge scratch/correct-warning-pos into master, perhaps? Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2022 14:00:00 +0000 Message-ID: References: <83mtjwzwkb.fsf@gnu.org> <87r198ytog.fsf@gnus.org> <87lezfzy5h.fsf@gnus.org> <87zgnv9964.fsf@yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="3634"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen , Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Po Lu Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Jan 16 15:01:36 2022 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 1n9669-0000nM-AH for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 16 Jan 2022 15:01:33 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:46314 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1n9667-0000GK-Mf for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 16 Jan 2022 09:01:31 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:58386) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1n964u-0007sY-1F for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 16 Jan 2022 09:00:16 -0500 Original-Received: from colin.muc.de ([193.149.48.1]:57176 helo=mail.muc.de) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1n964j-0006Ba-W2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 16 Jan 2022 09:00:08 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail 21530 invoked by uid 3782); 16 Jan 2022 14:00:04 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (p2e5d50dc.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [46.93.80.220]) (using STARTTLS) by colin.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Sun, 16 Jan 2022 15:00:04 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 32251 invoked by uid 1000); 16 Jan 2022 14:00:00 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87zgnv9964.fsf@yahoo.com> X-Submission-Agent: TMDA/1.3.x (Ph3nix) X-Primary-Address: acm@muc.de Received-SPF: pass client-ip=193.149.48.1; envelope-from=acm@muc.de; helo=mail.muc.de X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action 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" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:284815 Archived-At: Hello, Pl. On Sun, Jan 16, 2022 at 20:06:43 +0800, Po Lu wrote: > Lars Ingebrigtsen writes: > > A better benchmark is something like the following, since we're > > interested in byte compilation speed and not the rest: > > time for i in `seq 1 10`; do rm lisp/gnus/*.elc lisp/org/*.elc; make -j8; done > > This is 17% slower on my build machine on the branch compared to master. > How much does it affect native compilation? Background native > compilation is already slow enough to be annoying. Multiple people have > said that they disabled that feature because it was too slow, so making > it even slower would be a step in the wrong direction, IMHO. Having wrong warning messages from the byte compiler is also not good. We have had a lot of bug reports about this, even if not for some while. The thing about byte compilation is that it is done only rarely - for many users, possibly most, exactly once. It is only really we developers who will notice a moderate decrease in compilation speed. My bootstrap on the branch takes 7m 14s. On master it's 6m 40s. That's only 34s in 400s, which isn't even 10%. It doesn't even make the difference between fetching a cup of coffee and not. > Thanks. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).