--- Begin Message ---
|
Subject: |
forw_comment slowdown since 22.3 |
|
Date: |
Fri, 25 Sep 2009 15:47:54 -0700 (PDT) |
$ cd emacs/src
$ cat emacs.c emacs.c emacs.c emacs.c emacs.c > /tmp/emacs.c
$ emacs /tmp/emacs.c
C-x h
M-;
C-x C-s
C-x C-c
$ cat /tmp/t.el
(defun myfwd ()
(interactive)
(dotimes (n 1)
(while (forward-comment 1))
(while (forward-comment -1)))
(save-buffers-kill-emacs))
;; increase N if your machine is much faster
Now do:
emacs -Q -l /tmp/t.el /tmp/emacs.c -f myfwd
with both CVS HEAD and 22.3.
The gprof results with 22.3:
Each sample counts as 0.01 seconds.
% cumulative self self total
time seconds seconds calls s/call s/call name
81.40 4.90 4.90 5200163 0.00 0.00 forw_comment
12.62 5.66 0.76 642 0.00 0.01 scan_sexps_forward
0.83 5.71 0.05 34941 0.00 0.00 back_comment
0.66 5.75 0.04 1282235 0.00 0.00 char_quoted
0.66 5.79 0.04 13498 0.00 0.00 re_search_2
0.66 5.83 0.04 10738 0.00 0.00 mark_object
0.33 5.85 0.02 54716 0.00 0.00 read1
0.33 5.87 0.02 38404 0.00 0.00 Feval
0.33 5.89 0.02 38012 0.00 0.00 Fbyte_code
0.17 5.90 0.01 183599 0.00 0.00 specbind
0.17 5.91 0.01 99154 0.00 0.00 find_interval
0.17 5.92 0.01 61433 0.00 0.00 get_keymap
0.17 5.93 0.01 37912 0.00 0.00 funcall_lambda
0.17 5.94 0.01 23239 0.00 0.00 oblookup
0.17 5.95 0.01 18737 0.00 0.00 scan_newline
0.17 5.96 0.01 12410 0.00 0.00 get_keyelt
0.17 5.97 0.01 664 0.00 0.00 append_glyph
0.17 5.98 0.01 515 0.00 0.00 re_compile_pattern
0.17 5.99 0.01 7 0.00 0.00 detect_coding_mask
0.17 6.00 0.01 3 0.00 0.00 decode_eol
and with CVS HEAD:
Each sample counts as 0.01 seconds.
% cumulative self self total
time seconds seconds calls s/call s/call name
84.45 6.30 6.30 5200163 0.00 0.00 forw_comment
9.12 6.98 0.68 642 0.00 0.01 scan_sexps_forward
1.47 7.09 0.11 34941 0.00 0.00 back_comment
1.21 7.18 0.09 1747491 0.00 0.00 mark_object
0.40 7.21 0.03 1282235 0.00 0.00 char_quoted
0.40 7.24 0.03 50653 0.00 0.00 re_search_2
0.27 7.26 0.02 768825 0.00 0.00 readchar
0.27 7.28 0.02 738707 0.00 0.00 Faref
0.27 7.30 0.02 25406 0.00 0.00 re_compile_pattern
0.27 7.32 0.02 12264 0.00 0.00 mem_insert
0.13 7.33 0.01 890859 0.00 0.00 mark_vectorlike
0.13 7.34 0.01 739728 0.00 0.00 readbyte_from_file
0.13 7.35 0.01 104164 0.00 0.00
balance_possible_root_interval
0.13 7.36 0.01 64037 0.00 0.00 re_match_2_internal
0.13 7.37 0.01 34284 0.00 0.00 update_syntax_table
0.13 7.38 0.01 25395 0.00 0.00 re_compile_fastmap
0.13 7.39 0.01 21718 0.00 0.00 oblookup
0.13 7.40 0.01 21080 0.00 0.00 multibyte_chars_in_text
0.13 7.41 0.01 1170 0.00 0.00 str_as_unibyte
0.13 7.42 0.01 529 0.00 0.00 mark_char_table
0.13 7.43 0.01 10 0.00 0.01 Fgarbage_collect
0.13 7.44 0.01 10 0.00 0.00 free_glyph_matrix
0.13 7.45 0.01 3 0.00 0.01 Fparse_partial_sexp
0.07 7.46 0.01 158439 0.00 0.00
multibyte_char_to_unibyte_safe
0.07 7.46 0.01 multibyte_char_to_unibyte
0.00 7.46 0.00 727705 0.00 0.00 char_table_translate
0.00 7.46 0.00 205798 0.00 0.00 Fcdr
The same number of calls to forw_comment take longer with CVS HEAD.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
|
Subject: |
Re: bug#4558: forw_comment slowdown since 22.3 |
|
Date: |
Wed, 15 Jan 2020 06:38:40 +0100 |
|
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
Lars Ingebrigtsen <address@hidden> writes:
> Dan Nicolaescu <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> $ cd emacs/src
>>
>> $ cat emacs.c emacs.c emacs.c emacs.c emacs.c > /tmp/emacs.c
>>
>> $ emacs /tmp/emacs.c
>> C-x h
>> M-;
>> C-x C-s
>> C-x C-c
>>
>> $ cat /tmp/t.el
>> (defun myfwd ()
>> (interactive)
>> (dotimes (n 1)
>> (while (forward-comment 1))
>> (while (forward-comment -1)))
>> (save-buffers-kill-emacs))
>> ;; increase N if your machine is much faster
>>
>> Now do:
>>
>> emacs -Q -l /tmp/t.el /tmp/emacs.c -f myfwd
>
> (I'm going through old bug reports that unfortunately didn't get any
> response at the time.)
>
> I've tried this in Emacs 27, and it seems quite fast -- much less than a
> second. But, then again, computers are faster now than they were back
> when this was reported. Are you still seeing slow forw_comment in more
> modern Emacs versions?
More information was requested, but none was given within 15 weeks, so
I'm closing this bug. If this is still an issue, please reply to this
email (use "Reply to all" in your email client) and we can reopen the
bug report.
Best regards,
Stefan Kangas
--- End Message ---