From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: State of the overlay tree branch? Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 10:56:30 -0400 Message-ID: References: <834lldp18f.fsf@gnu.org> <9646341d-700b-4240-216b-8c0e753fa79f@arkona-technologies.de> <86d03e78-9984-f33e-a3f3-3faa4b34d78b@arkona-technologies.de> <83vadso9ad.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1521471324 6746 195.159.176.226 (19 Mar 2018 14:55:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 14:55:24 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Mar 19 15:55:20 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1exwC0-0001dP-Ca for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 15:55:20 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42394 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1exwE1-0007Df-Mm for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 10:57:25 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51626) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1exwDN-0007DT-AE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 10:56:46 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1exwDJ-0002YH-DI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 10:56:45 -0400 Original-Received: from [195.159.176.226] (port=40088 helo=blaine.gmane.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1exwDJ-0002XT-5w for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 10:56:41 -0400 Original-Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1exwBC-0000l6-9r for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 15:54:30 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 22 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org Cancel-Lock: sha1:aYAu5fLXstYQMLLU4wE223AJ8dQ= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 195.159.176.226 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:223818 Archived-At: > well no, it's about 2.5ms per call to line-number-at-pos, which is called at > least 6 times per character insertion (with my Emacs config, at > least). Which already makes for 15ms per character insertion, excluding > anything else done by cc-mode or lsp-mode. Since you say that the noverlay branch helps, could you check the number of overlays involved? E.g. M-: (length (overlays-in (point-min) (point-max))) RET If there are more overlays than chars in this buffer, maybe there's a problem in some Elisp that creates too many overlays? If there aren't that many overlays, then I wonder why the noverlays branch would make such a significant difference. Also, if you can reliably reproduce the "slow editing", would it be possible to make a recipe for it that we can try and reproduce on our side? Stefan