From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: emacs rendering comparisson between emacs23 and emacs26.3 Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2020 14:48:33 -0400 Message-ID: References: <834ku43c61.fsf@gnu.org> <83k12zz6ds.fsf@gnu.org> <054393f3-3873-ab6e-b325-0eca354d8838@gmx.at> <20200403174757.GA8266@ACM> <20200404104553.GA5329@ACM> <07fe3b69-3ab2-3173-0696-cb17809e2b91@gmx.at> <83blo7v68b.fsf@gnu.org> <1845d7aa-9ae4-3d95-6a30-c7b1d8d8adec@gmx.at> <83a73qt6zs.fsf@gnu.org> <97c4254e-ff43-8402-3645-f713c408c245@gmx.at> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="32626"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: acm@muc.de, Eli Zaretskii , rrandresf@gmail.com, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: martin rudalics Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Apr 05 20:50:09 2020 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 1jLALR-0008OB-JY for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 05 Apr 2020 20:50:09 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50842 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jLALQ-0002dD-N3 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 05 Apr 2020 14:50:08 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:35016) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jLAK1-00022g-Vi for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 05 Apr 2020 14:48:42 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jLAK0-0004KH-9K for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 05 Apr 2020 14:48:41 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:6857) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jLAJx-0004IU-L1; Sun, 05 Apr 2020 14:48:37 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 5E58380D52; Sun, 5 Apr 2020 14:48:36 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id AF72580B6E; Sun, 5 Apr 2020 14:48:34 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1586112514; bh=10Vv5Pf8DmZeYl6b14jctiHUr4peAwDyV2XEIKXp84E=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=calQPtkJFby34xW1z7ozvFRmHRsmoZ++RcfiSi72sM+c73ZCTPD3A8prOLy4+t3xp BhhkH4o5iulXuanAPV3IXuV9IaUC9BFLBirsXklTUBNWHkb4TnvUnomDHcNAEuFOE0 BIzwTzm1hKGfKXpxfAf0r6r9bzTaqjBz/iFbhukCXqUZHsSC5YChw98zyEWqdFWe9d vOv9DOMekIEphMIwH6WbN9uVUdQeG08J0f3eKcOjkeGxsuPIeB3W+uzUa7HSArB+LG enukr8MmeKii6l3G2fT/XCrt6cFoGHgjR5MCscTEFnukdPpZz3vuPi5IN/DQqW8oe9 Kh3XRISmwtx5g== Original-Received: from alfajor (unknown [104.247.241.114]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3CB0612030B; Sun, 5 Apr 2020 14:48:34 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <97c4254e-ff43-8402-3645-f713c408c245@gmx.at> (martin rudalics's message of "Sun, 5 Apr 2020 17:50:33 +0200") X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 132.204.25.50 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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:246476 Archived-At: > apparently takes 30 to 35 calls to get into those ~10 second freezes. [...] > I cannot nearly simulate the problem using a simple loop that steadily > invokes say (forward-line 50) followed by a (sit-for 0). 50 such > invocations take 16.7 seconds here, 22.7 with (forward-line -50). 16s in one case a "10 seconds freeze": it sounds to me like you *do* reproduce the problem. The only difference is that with actual keyboard input pending the redisplay is partly prevented which is what you perceive as "freeze", but the real problem is the time it takes. > But what's "fast enough"? Fontification that is faster than the signal rate > of the keyboard? Yes. Of course, that depends not only on Emacs's code and the optimization level, but also on your CPU and your keyboard repetition setting. Stefan