From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Juanma Barranquero" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Default of jit-lock-stealth-time Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 12:26:25 +0100 Message-ID: References: <85tzxazb8r.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <87ps7x4clj.fsf@pacem.orebokech.com> <85irdpweuq.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <85649pw652.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1172489210 21305 80.91.229.12 (26 Feb 2007 11:26:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 11:26:50 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Andreas Schwab , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "David Kastrup" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Feb 26 12:26:43 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HLe0B-0003aL-0n for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 26 Feb 2007 12:26:43 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HLe0A-0001u2-Fs for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 26 Feb 2007 06:26:42 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HLdzx-0001sy-1A for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Feb 2007 06:26:29 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HLdzw-0001sa-Gm for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Feb 2007 06:26:28 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HLdzw-0001sU-24 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Feb 2007 06:26:28 -0500 Original-Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.171]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1HLdzv-0007q9-MX for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Feb 2007 06:26:27 -0500 Original-Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id j3so814260ugf for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2007 03:26:26 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=eB5d3j0OF+1mUQ4+Hx/vncV4gU4oq4JjDncVqfpMtDhHDBDcS8Xr/GC17Oub2Oujn6c4hN+y1D026/zQv/XhGTJYzUYxOD4PBm7ttLFnDlwlEbiJH70c8eezuyXbybRPw92gpJrAHO0ZIfaOdGJcSC2tfyXQdk54YZXEA9FG5Bc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=ZHBacDMnbTjiAbAj9DPxqYOKiWLCM30z/w5p9DMmYMaEka+DWoEBonVNYolwxiVK1E4Du67qH4Fnj7quNnoW79MizhEb84GSVb8H17PxPVcNlgWeqLMgTb/Wd3aqOSuJ9FWgvNsxWJC3VJX+ydXy+LU/ViCT9uiHlwrZdaQynqs= Original-Received: by 10.114.47.1 with SMTP id u1mr855581wau.1172489185677; Mon, 26 Feb 2007 03:26:25 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.114.234.16 with HTTP; Mon, 26 Feb 2007 03:26:25 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <85649pw652.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> Content-Disposition: inline X-detected-kernel: Linux 2.4-2.6 (Google crawlbot) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:66846 Archived-At: On 2/26/07, David Kastrup wrote: I don't have an opinion about the setting of the variable, but FWIW I'm in Andreas' boat: I have it at default value, and I've never noticed any ill effect. > This is particularly noticeable if the noise level of your system > depends on the CPU load (like increased fan usage). > > Would you be likely to notice this on your system? Not at work's machine, but definitely on my home's laptop. And I didn't notice it (not that it didn't happen, but if it *did* happen it wasn't much of an issue). Perhaps a better metric would be: do you always have lots of buffers? I don't. Most of the time I have perhaps two or three (non-special) buffers open. I tend to quickly close any buffer I'm not working on. Juanma