[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#32728: bug#32729: Xemacs 23 times as fast as GNU Emacs
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
bug#32728: bug#32729: Xemacs 23 times as fast as GNU Emacs |
Date: |
Mon, 14 Oct 2019 11:18:03 +0300 |
> From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org>
> Cc: benjamin.benninghofen@airbus.com, layer@franz.com,
> 32729@debbugs.gnu.org, 32728@debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2019 19:36:47 +0200
>
> So this is the design I want to do:
>
> process-add-callback PROCESS FUNCTION
> process-remove-callback PROCESS FUNCTION
>
> FUNCTION takes three parameters: The PROCESS and the start/end of the
> region inserted. Perhaps it would make sense to do something with the
> return values -- if the function returns non-nil, then further callbacks
> are inhibited?
I don't understand what would trigger these callbacks, and how do you
specify the region in advance, without knowing what will be inserted.
Without understanding this, I don't think I see the utility, and most
important: why this would be faster.
> > However, I would begin by measuring the effect of this resizing on the
> > time it takes to receive large amounts of data. Maybe other factors
> > make this part negligible.
>
> Sure. My simple dd test (without a filter) surprised me by being as
> fast as it was, so Emacs was able to grow that buffer quicker than I
> expected. But it's also a pretty simple test case -- I can try to see
> what happens if I call enlarge_buffer_text to 1GB first and see what the
> effects are.
Btw, unlike what I originally implied, the default filter also
receives a Lisp string, so the question why by default reading dd
output is so much faster than when you define a non-default filter
function still stands.
- bug#32728: bug#32729: Xemacs 23 times as fast as GNU Emacs, Lars Ingebrigtsen, 2019/10/11
- bug#32728: bug#32729: Xemacs 23 times as fast as GNU Emacs, Lars Ingebrigtsen, 2019/10/13
- bug#32728: bug#32729: Xemacs 23 times as fast as GNU Emacs, Eli Zaretskii, 2019/10/13
- bug#32728: bug#32729: Xemacs 23 times as fast as GNU Emacs, Lars Ingebrigtsen, 2019/10/14
- bug#32728: bug#32729: Xemacs 23 times as fast as GNU Emacs, Eli Zaretskii, 2019/10/14
- bug#32728: bug#32729: Xemacs 23 times as fast as GNU Emacs, Benninghofen, Benjamin Dr., 2019/10/25
- bug#32729: Xemacs 23 times as fast as GNU Emacs, Eli Zaretskii, 2019/10/25
bug#32728: bug#32729: Xemacs 23 times as fast as GNU Emacs, Phil Sainty, 2019/10/13