[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: `read' is now >200x slower than under 9.2 and 10.1.10.
|
From: |
Taylor R Campbell |
|
Subject: |
Re: `read' is now >200x slower than under 9.2 and 10.1.10. |
|
Date: |
Fri, 1 May 2020 22:03:12 +0000 |
> Date: Fri, 1 May 2020 13:56:29 -0700
> From: "Arthur A. Gleckler" <address@hidden>
>
> I haven't tracked down the cause, but in a trivial test case, read is more
> than 200x slower under 10.1.90 than under 9.2 and 10.1.10:
> [...]
> Does anyone have a clue what might have caused this decline?
I don't know offhand but have you tried running it through the
profiler?
(with-stack-sampling sample-interval-in-ms (lambda () ...))
- `read' is now >200x slower than under 9.2 and 10.1.10., Arthur A. Gleckler, 2020/05/01
- Re: `read' is now >200x slower than under 9.2 and 10.1.10.,
Taylor R Campbell <=
- Re: `read' is now >200x slower than under 9.2 and 10.1.10., Arthur A. Gleckler, 2020/05/01
- Re: `read' is now >200x slower than under 9.2 and 10.1.10., Arthur A. Gleckler, 2020/05/01
- Re: `read' is now >200x slower than under 9.2 and 10.1.10., Taylor R Campbell, 2020/05/01
- Re: `read' is now >200x slower than under 9.2 and 10.1.10., Arthur A. Gleckler, 2020/05/01
- Re: `read' is now >200x slower than under 9.2 and 10.1.10., Chris Hanson, 2020/05/01
- Re: `read' is now >200x slower than under 9.2 and 10.1.10., Arthur A. Gleckler, 2020/05/01
- Re: `read' is now >200x slower than under 9.2 and 10.1.10., Arthur A. Gleckler, 2020/05/02
- Re: `read' is now >200x slower than under 9.2 and 10.1.10., Taylor R Campbell, 2020/05/02
- Re: `read' is now >200x slower than under 9.2 and 10.1.10., Arthur A. Gleckler, 2020/05/02
- Re: `read' is now >200x slower than under 9.2 and 10.1.10., Arthur A. Gleckler, 2020/05/02