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 10:39:10 -0400 Message-ID: References: > <834lldp18f.fsf@gnu.org>> <83tvtco8xl.fsf@gnu.org> <83d100nrpg.fsf@gnu.org> <83bmfknnpx.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1521470245 28314 195.159.176.226 (19 Mar 2018 14:37:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 14:37:25 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Mar 19 15:37:21 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 1exvub-0007GP-00 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 15:37:21 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42338 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1exvwd-0001it-BI for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 10:39:27 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47367) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1exvwT-0001he-J3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 10:39:18 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1exvwO-0006rM-MW for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 10:39:17 -0400 Original-Received: from pruche.dit.umontreal.ca ([132.204.246.22]:39548) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1exvwO-0006pp-FT; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 10:39:12 -0400 Original-Received: from ceviche.home (lechon.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.242]) by pruche.dit.umontreal.ca (8.14.7/8.14.1) with ESMTP id w2JEdAJo018025; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 10:39:10 -0400 Original-Received: by ceviche.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 631E466461; Mon, 19 Mar 2018 10:39:10 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <83bmfknnpx.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Mon, 19 Mar 2018 16:28:58 +0200") X-NAI-Spam-Flag: NO X-NAI-Spam-Threshold: 5 X-NAI-Spam-Score: 0 X-NAI-Spam-Rules: 2 Rules triggered EDT_SA_DN_PASS=0, RV6245=0 X-NAI-Spam-Version: 2.3.0.9418 : core <6245> : inlines <6502> : streams <1781655> : uri <2611086> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 132.204.246.22 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:223817 Archived-At: > Could be a good idea, but I suggest to time its improvement before we > decide. I've seen a few surprises in that area. I see some speed up in my artificial test (where I create an insane number of markers at point-min and then ask to goto-char to the middle of a midsized buffer) but I can't see any impact whatsoever (neither positive nor negative) in real tests (unsurprisingly). I'd rather first have a non-artificial case where I can measure a speed up. Stefan