Robert Pluim <rpluim@gmail.com> writes:

>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 13:08:07 +0200, Manuel Giraud <manuel@ledu-giraud.fr> said:
>
>     Manuel> Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@gnu.org> writes:
>     Manuel> [...]
>
>     >>> Here are my results with this new benchmark:
>     >> 
>     >> (Several measurements are really needed because of variability)
>
>     Manuel> Why not.  So, here is the benchmark code I used:
>
> So it looks to me like not emitting \t\b is slightly faster. Could you
> repost your patch with a user option to enable/disable it? Then we can
> discuss what the default should be. Iʼm leaning towards the default
> being not emitting it, since the resulting redisplay will be correct
> in any case.

Hi Robert and all,

Here it is.  I'm not quite sure about the user option name, its
documentation and NEWS entry.  Samuel could you test if this new default
works for screen readers and also if setting
`inhibit-overshoot-in-tty-motions' to nil make them unwork.

FWIW, here are the results for Robert's benchmark (xterm only) with this
patch:

* inhibit-overshoot-in-tty-motions is t (default)
** xterm -geometry 80x50
0) GCs: 116 Elapsed time: 62.708855 seconds
1) GCs: 116 Elapsed time: 70.723578 seconds
2) GCs: 115 Elapsed time: 70.099679 seconds
3) GCs: 115 Elapsed time: 70.479095 seconds
4) GCs: 115 Elapsed time: 70.143764 seconds

* (setopt inhibit-overshoot-in-tty-motions nil)
** xterm -geometry 80x50
0) GCs: 117 Elapsed time: 62.697354 seconds
1) GCs: 115 Elapsed time: 71.844141 seconds
2) GCs: 116 Elapsed time: 71.422948 seconds
3) GCs: 115 Elapsed time: 71.161357 seconds
4) GCs: 115 Elapsed time: 70.877772 seconds