From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Kenichi Handa Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Performance Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 19:30:10 +0900 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1276165911 15868 80.91.229.12 (10 Jun 2010 10:31:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 10:31:51 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jun 10 12:31:50 2010 connect(): No such file or directory Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OMf35-0002le-6N for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 12:31:50 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49030 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OMf2t-0003A7-Qk for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 06:31:35 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=34598 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OMf1j-0002na-Ma for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 06:30:25 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OMf1e-0002Xj-01 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 06:30:19 -0400 Original-Received: from mx1.aist.go.jp ([150.29.246.133]:54967) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OMf1d-0002Wt-Et for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 06:30:17 -0400 Original-Received: from rqsmtp2.aist.go.jp (rqsmtp2.aist.go.jp [150.29.254.123]) by mx1.aist.go.jp with ESMTP id o5AAUCXq023666; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 19:30:12 +0900 (JST) env-from (handa@m17n.org) Original-Received: from smtp4.aist.go.jp by rqsmtp2.aist.go.jp with ESMTP id o5AAUBGj020458; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 19:30:11 +0900 (JST) env-from (handa@m17n.org) Original-Received: by smtp4.aist.go.jp with ESMTP id o5AAUB7S026331; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 19:30:11 +0900 (JST) env-from (handa@m17n.org) Original-Received: from handa by etlken with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OMf1W-0002W2-TS; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 19:30:10 +0900 In-Reply-To: (message from Stefan Monnier on Sun, 06 Jun 2010 21:05:54 -0400) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 9 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:125702 Archived-At: In article , Stefan Monnier writes: > It seems that functionality-wise, the bidi code is almost as good as it > was before bidi. But performancewise, I experience some problems. > I recently started to compile without -DENABLE_CHECKING and other such > debugging code (tho still with -O0 and -g) and am seeing cases where > cursor motion is slow. The problem is most notable in operations such > as C-e or C-n/C-p (tho those tend to be fast enough as long as I'm in > column 0). > Redisplay itself also seems to be noticeable slower at times. Do you see the same slowness when you set auto-composition-mode to nil? --- handa@m17n.org