From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andrea Corallo via "Emacs development discussions." Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: master 289000e: Merge branch 'feature/native-comp' into trunk Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 19:09:42 +0000 Message-ID: References: <83v989jmuc.fsf@gnu.org> <83czuhjh0r.fsf@gnu.org> <83bla1jd0w.fsf@gnu.org> <83y2d5hsaq.fsf@gnu.org> <8335vah9x4.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Andrea Corallo Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="27623"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Apr 28 21:10:42 2021 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 1lbpa6-00077U-Es for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 21:10:42 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49914 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lbpa5-0002d1-IU for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 15:10:41 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:47044) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lbpZC-0002Dd-6e for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 15:09:46 -0400 Original-Received: from mx.sdf.org ([205.166.94.24]:56953) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lbpZA-00073L-K4; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 15:09:45 -0400 Original-Received: from mab (ma.sdf.org [205.166.94.33]) by mx.sdf.org (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPS id 13SJ9gQU021727 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256 bits) verified NO); Wed, 28 Apr 2021 19:09:42 GMT In-Reply-To: (Alan Mackenzie's message of "Wed, 28 Apr 2021 12:32:34 +0000") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=205.166.94.24; envelope-from=akrl@sdf.org; helo=mx.sdf.org X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action 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:268580 Archived-At: Alan Mackenzie writes: > Hello, Eli. > > On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 15:26:47 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> > Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 11:34:13 +0000 >> > Cc: akrl@sdf.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org >> > From: Alan Mackenzie > >> > The timings on src/minibuf.c were: >> > (i) .elc files: 6.31s. >> > (ii) .eln files: 5.44s. > >> > , which is around a 13% speed up. > >> Was Emacs built with or without optimizations? > > Optimised builds in both cases. I think the only reliable way of knowing where in your test the time is spent is to run it under 'perf'. This should also explain the results measured so far. Can this test be run as batch? Thanks Andrea