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: Reliable after-change-functions (via: Using incremental parsing in Emacs) Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2020 19:01:58 -0400 Message-ID: References: <83v9mkz5oo.fsf@gnu.org> <83pncsym6l.fsf@gnu.org> <4a9d6bb2-458d-89b0-5389-d1f883ef24a1@yandex.ru> <20200401135237.GA6240@ACM> <20200404110643.GB5329@ACM> <8a5e50ce-1ca6-078b-7e4b-b7849207092d@yandex.ru> <20200404123613.GE5329@ACM> <837dyvv1yq.fsf@gnu.org> <05ef31a9-a75e-4bbc-2c80-70d581baa0e9@yandex.ru> <83y2rbtddx.fsf@gnu.org> <83tv1ztd24.fsf@gnu.org> <0b4cc3ba-3091-7bda-debb-948e8eca075f@yandex.ru> <83lfnbta6h.fsf@gnu.org> <90cc9e9f-9997-0fa2-e1a8-fd0fb227809f@yandex.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="59783"; 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 , emacs-devel@gnu.org, casouri@gmail.com, akrl@sdf.org To: Dmitry Gutov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Apr 05 01:02:35 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 1jKroB-000FRy-BQ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 05 Apr 2020 01:02:35 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42864 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jKroA-0006ub-Eb for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 04 Apr 2020 19:02:34 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:42214) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jKrng-0006Ui-GE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 04 Apr 2020 19:02:05 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jKrnf-0002lR-AT for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 04 Apr 2020 19:02:04 -0400 Original-Received: from mailscanner.iro.umontreal.ca ([132.204.25.50]:18128) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jKrnd-0002jF-Tf; Sat, 04 Apr 2020 19:02:02 -0400 Original-Received: from pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 1E60E80E00; Sat, 4 Apr 2020 19:02:01 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (unknown [172.31.2.1]) by pmg2.iro.umontreal.ca (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 7BDDD80D58; Sat, 4 Apr 2020 19:01:59 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=iro.umontreal.ca; s=mail; t=1586041319; bh=iuqGqVBcAMT7HjcNJxNeZXjoxcoXQOStAuoKP73bXfY=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=pEq7pJoNfEDxeusx4oOocdK1U16MPrhA1bm0UTkvQ/LBgVf9lu/B/18YBxqEcNcUm WNTBE7ZM9/AxFRjui3FdaMRbermM4QxyCqgK3N54UHSC8A+view+DPpzCYLLSXRdic QGda4GB8vEczOZZvl2qh3122G3hlWpdY0dYQlS7MTZE12aiyMpU79ple4Grtghsx84 KPaQ+7fOYLzj9hLjXfz/IUyPvI4O4b3fNxtrwA37oGWKMuvlS5I434T/25gXOlPCdG rIM/DU5qSQqJ43E9HVoXeYyvP0qPP08BNIJ4AiGBgjx2FdLTuEn/q4SvlhDhVYXb6C IJDfwUE5V8+Vw== Original-Received: from alfajor (unknown [104.247.241.114]) by mail01.iro.umontreal.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1876B12055F; Sat, 4 Apr 2020 19:01:59 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <90cc9e9f-9997-0fa2-e1a8-fd0fb227809f@yandex.ru> (Dmitry Gutov's message of "Sat, 4 Apr 2020 21:02:15 +0300") 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:246430 Archived-At: > 0.76 / 0.13 ~= 5.86 > > Alan's difference is bigger, but not by much: > > 1.24 / 0.18 ~= 6.88 > 1.18 (from another email) / 0.18 ~= 6.55 That does remind me that I've had the impression "lately" that debug builds are much slower than they used to be. I suspect (for no reason other than lack of imagination on my part) this is linked to the changes from macros to inlinable functions. When Paul started doing that we tried to keep some "important" macros as macros (depending on DEFINE_KEY_OPS_AS_MACROS) to keep the performance impact under control. Maybe something changed in this respect (maybe we should add a few more fallback-macros into the set of functions affected by DEFINE_KEY_OPS_AS_MACROS, or maybe something prevents DEFINE_KEY_OPS_AS_MACROS from doing its job, or ...)? Stefan