From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Optimizing tty display update Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2022 11:14:00 -0400 Message-ID: References: <835yhwd3z4.fsf@gnu.org> <88387d9e-3717-fd62-9912-bfd571250033@gmail.com> <83pmg39uim.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="8576"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/29.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: Gerd =?windows-1252?Q?M=F6llmann?= , tomas@tuxteam.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Sep 10 17:15:03 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 1oX2CD-0001x0-8K for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 10 Sep 2022 17:15:01 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:53912 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oX2CC-0005hK-3Z for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 10 Sep 2022 11:15:00 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:44900) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oX2BM-0003pG-1C for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 10 Sep 2022 11:14:08 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:31753) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1oX2BJ-0004PI-GS; Sat, 10 Sep 2022 11:14:06 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3A083442462; Sat, 10 Sep 2022 11:14:03 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg3.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id EE644442444; Sat, 10 Sep 2022 11:14:01 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1662822841; bh=yy63c1b10YRzmC1WuIFttZR/r/dL8Luk39HiDQHnN7I=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=crDb2+ZGYjh3rCnMQrp5iZulu5OYgF2PD/FeLHuKzzmWKOC6bvIU7rg/Pq+Oxqe8+ GoVlmrdl893tPXFfg0wtBXtujWJesKvXkSET1DMYxBfeWlM1Rfkw+nS+vh0B/L82Kr G7hPp6drW+uzniLcGX+6b8ftkf1A1GYw6VWNKk62/oTdrIoswjYSje9gkErgxDqZYk Q65b2F9ZMZRnu5A/Hnf5ZXSJnjK0BZnL5aY+6SudIfyGCI+mPouL98Yqv1tNEuSWxJ 7Fa7YaknYqE3hStxEhOYegRi7Wz6/WbCzBlAJJN2ZYPy9gGU7fSl91y9IYunglw5/U rM2hToIRcXZtw== Original-Received: from pastel (unknown [157.52.9.190]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 952D81200A5; Sat, 10 Sep 2022 11:14:01 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <83pmg39uim.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sat, 10 Sep 2022 17:25:05 +0300") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=132.204.25.50; envelope-from=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca; helo=mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham 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:295132 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii [2022-09-10 17:25:05] wrote: > You guys all live behind very fast links, so forgive me if I don't > share your optimism. For me, the situation where I make typing > mistakes because Emacs cannot display what I type fast enough is very > much real. Of course, I have no idea whether flushing does anything > to that. FWIW, the change that Gerd suggests should make things faster rather than slower (it doesn't change the mount of bytes sent, only the number of `write` we perform). The risk is that it bumps into a bug where sending text in too-large a chunk leads to some error, as it seemed it was the case in some `telnet` cases back before 1991. Stefan