From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: joaotavora@gmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jo=E3o_T=E1vora?=) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs pretest -- electric-pair-mode change Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2014 10:49:33 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87d2h0ujls.fsf_-_@kitaj.lan> <87sipujhq2.fsf@kitaj.lan> <83ha69a5ul.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1396605000 534 80.91.229.3 (4 Apr 2014 09:50:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 09:50:00 +0000 (UTC) Cc: monnier@IRO.UMontreal.CA, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Apr 04 11:49:55 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WW0l0-00064F-BA for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 04 Apr 2014 11:49:54 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:48752 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WW0l0-0001Wo-0a for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 04 Apr 2014 05:49:54 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52037) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WW0kr-0001QV-Mk for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 04 Apr 2014 05:49:51 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WW0kl-0001cd-4q for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 04 Apr 2014 05:49:45 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-we0-x22d.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c03::22d]:39271) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WW0kk-0001cK-Tz; Fri, 04 Apr 2014 05:49:39 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-we0-f173.google.com with SMTP id w61so3115418wes.18 for ; Fri, 04 Apr 2014 02:49:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version:content-type; bh=L3KV1VazrztI/96+wN3MUft+o31DLUilyCPssuHleGg=; b=euhKoa6u/SToP8Xu0FrJeny7zCfBj++DWAgD4MlxLMU3IV5/QYgEQ62Kq6I8N7BNus YgEQRujBjZ2iL6orKxV2Oe/T8Buc44DWe2rXsKEscFB6Lb6P9BZh6KJYODZRX2K0g5m+ 3ZBuTgg7oAPlf9fRi4fKERQgwYS+J+OfoxngZZVLnkWClJVa/KmoyNh/BHYkDqMGmt5w MLZ3DEWk+CAc5chw3Np649DTbVxRyjPRQk20aLumJadkO2mueGGfBCmRV3ftDCAvsgND PJmSo0Ca01u7YoZawVLtrXbC7I1lLOtam05tQuTjJMjebeXECzfCvkKMHcmNughqEZt6 6bJQ== X-Received: by 10.180.189.43 with SMTP id gf11mr3088467wic.32.1396604977705; Fri, 04 Apr 2014 02:49:37 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from BELMONTE.yourcompany.com (a81-84-241-129.static.cpe.netcabo.pt. [81.84.241.129]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id k9sm11661913wjx.37.2014.04.04.02.49.36 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 04 Apr 2014 02:49:36 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <83ha69a5ul.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Fri, 04 Apr 2014 10:53:06 +0300") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (windows-nt) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2a00:1450:400c:c03::22d X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:171308 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> Of course, scheduling aside, in the end that's always true :-). > Scheduling is not really relevant here, since Emacs has only one > thread that runs Lisp, and its other threads, if there are any, don't > run any computation-intensive tasks that could yield user-visible > speed differences. I actually meant process scheduling, but yes assume no other relevant threads or processes and the architecture/compiled code combination determines it. >> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2014-03/msg00930.html > > That just describes how Windows binaries are compiled, but says > nothing about their speed relative to other systems. It suggests they are compiled with -O0, as is indeed my current one, just checked. But is it just these unofficial builds that are -O0? nt/INSTALL seems to suggest so. Are the builds in http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/emacs/windows/ optimized? >> But in general, is the machine-code for windows builds exactly the same >> (or very similar) as linux for things involved in these operations? > It's the same compiler (GCC) and similar or identical machine > architectures, so I don't expect very different code. Optimizations > change things, of course, but only by a factor of about 2. Any > greater speed difference is due to something else. I would expect that factor to vary according to type of operation. But OK, that would make my w32 hardware about 3 times slower for that particular syntax-ppss operation, since total time is about 6 times greater, I haven't measured exactly. > "M-: system-configuration-options RET" Thanks for the tip!