From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Feb 19 12:35:05 2013 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 19 Feb 2013 17:35:05 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37228 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1U7r5r-0000K2-SJ for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:35:04 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:58015) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1U7r5o-0000Jc-4b for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:35:01 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U7r4g-0005Go-4H for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:33:53 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, RP_MATCHES_RCVD, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY, USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.2 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]:50715) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U7Ugl-00042s-PU for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 12:39:39 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:34100) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U7USa-0002o5-Rl for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 12:25:06 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U7USR-0007xL-H4 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 12:25:00 -0500 Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:44074) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U7USR-0007wf-BM for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 12:24:51 -0500 Received: from ucsinet22.oracle.com (ucsinet22.oracle.com [156.151.31.94]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1) with ESMTP id r1IHOnwv011113 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 17:24:50 GMT Received: from acsmt357.oracle.com (acsmt357.oracle.com [141.146.40.157]) by ucsinet22.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r1IHOmmI003480 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 17:24:48 GMT Received: from abhmt117.oracle.com (abhmt117.oracle.com [141.146.116.69]) by acsmt357.oracle.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id r1IHOmH1014020 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 11:24:48 -0600 Received: from dradamslap1 (/130.35.178.8) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 09:24:47 -0800 From: "Drew Adams" To: Subject: 24.3.50; please do not use defsubst for `font-lock-(apply-highlight|fontify-anchored-keywords)' Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 09:24:46 -0800 Message-ID: <220CC265C06944E69F89E1F29796C873@us.oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: Ac4N/NkwKvP8kyu3REGPoyC8eCU9tA== X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 X-Source-IP: ucsinet22.oracle.com [156.151.31.94] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4.x-2.6.x [generic] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 208.118.235.17 X-Spam-Score: -6.2 (------) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -6.2 (------) These are not tiny, trivial functions. They do not fit the criteria for `defsubst' outlined in (elisp) `Inline Functions'. And they introduce all of the disadvantages listed there, especially this one, listed first: [I]f you change the definition of the function, calls already inlined still use the old definition until you recompile them. One use case: I have highlighting code that uses text property `font-lock-ignore'. I modify a few font-lock.el functions so that text that has this property is ignored. IOW, this property tells font-lock "Hands off", so that it will not erase of otherwise interfere with such highlighting. I see no reason why these function should not be defuns. In GNU Emacs 24.3.50.1 (i386-mingw-nt5.1.2600) of 2013-02-17 on VBOX-W7 Bzr revision: 111822 rgm@gnu.org-20130217190146-mm9bh3227ev56bus Windowing system distributor `Microsoft Corp.', version 5.1.2600 Configured using: `configure --with-gcc (4.7) --no-opt --enable-checking --cflags -IC:/emacs/libs/libXpm-3.5.10/include -IC:/emacs/libs/libXpm-3.5.10/src -IC:/emacs/libs/libpng-dev_1.4.3-1_win32/include -IC:/emacs/libs/zlib-dev_1.2.5-2_win32/include -IC:/emacs/libs/giflib-4.1.4-1-lib/include -IC:/emacs/libs/jpeg-6b-4-lib/include -IC:/emacs/libs/tiff-3.8.2-1-lib/include -IC:/emacs/libs/libxml2-2.7.8-w32-bin/include/libxml2 -IC:/emacs/libs/gnutls-3.1.8-w32/include -IC:/emacs/libs/libiconv-1.14-2-mingw32-dev/include' From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Apr 28 18:31:13 2016 Received: (at 13764) by debbugs.gnu.org; 28 Apr 2016 22:31:13 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53668 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1avuSn-0006GQ-8P for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 28 Apr 2016 18:31:13 -0400 Received: from hermes.netfonds.no ([80.91.224.195]:38519) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1avuSl-0006EY-KQ for 13764@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 28 Apr 2016 18:31:11 -0400 Received: from cm-84.215.1.64.getinternet.no ([84.215.1.64] helo=mouse) by hermes.netfonds.no with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1avuSi-00018t-U7; Fri, 29 Apr 2016 00:31:11 +0200 From: Lars Ingebrigtsen To: "Drew Adams" Subject: Re: bug#13764: 24.3.50; please do not use defsubst for `font-lock-(apply-highlight|fontify-anchored-keywords)' References: <220CC265C06944E69F89E1F29796C873@us.oracle.com> Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 00:31:08 +0200 In-Reply-To: <220CC265C06944E69F89E1F29796C873@us.oracle.com> (Drew Adams's message of "Mon, 18 Feb 2013 09:24:46 -0800") Message-ID: <87lh3x2wnn.fsf@gnus.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 13764 Cc: 13764@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) "Drew Adams" writes: > These are not tiny, trivial functions. > > They do not fit the criteria for `defsubst' outlined in (elisp) > `Inline Functions'. And they introduce all of the disadvantages > listed there, especially this one, listed first: [...] > I see no reason why these function should not be defuns. Presumably they are that way because of efficiency concerns. Have you done benchmarking to compare the impact of these defsubsts turning into defuns? -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Apr 29 12:17:36 2016 Received: (at 13764) by debbugs.gnu.org; 29 Apr 2016 16:17:36 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55582 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1awB6m-0002qP-4u for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 29 Apr 2016 12:17:36 -0400 Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:21669) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1awB6k-0002qD-D7 for 13764@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 29 Apr 2016 12:17:34 -0400 Received: from userv0022.oracle.com (userv0022.oracle.com [156.151.31.74]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id u3TGHRV4023457 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 29 Apr 2016 16:17:28 GMT Received: from userv0121.oracle.com (userv0121.oracle.com [156.151.31.72]) by userv0022.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u3TGHRZp002160 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 29 Apr 2016 16:17:27 GMT Received: from abhmp0001.oracle.com (abhmp0001.oracle.com [141.146.116.7]) by userv0121.oracle.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u3TGHQrb005619; Fri, 29 Apr 2016 16:17:27 GMT MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <090ab034-aeeb-432e-b597-a138c5c13efa@default> Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 09:17:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Drew Adams To: Lars Ingebrigtsen Subject: RE: bug#13764: 24.3.50; please do not use defsubst for `font-lock-(apply-highlight|fontify-anchored-keywords)' References: <220CC265C06944E69F89E1F29796C873@us.oracle.com> <87lh3x2wnn.fsf@gnus.org> In-Reply-To: <87lh3x2wnn.fsf@gnus.org> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9 (901082) [OL 12.0.6744.5000 (x86)] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Source-IP: userv0022.oracle.com [156.151.31.74] X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 13764 Cc: 13764@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) > > These are not tiny, trivial functions. > > > > They do not fit the criteria for `defsubst' outlined in (elisp) > > `Inline Functions'. And they introduce all of the disadvantages > > listed there, especially this one, listed first: >=20 > [...] >=20 > > I see no reason why these function should not be defuns. >=20 > Presumably they are that way because of efficiency concerns. Have you > done benchmarking to compare the impact of these defsubsts turning into > defuns? Oh come on. Why such a presumption? Did you look at the code? Read what you quoted above. These do not fit the clearly documented criteria for `defsubst'. Do you see a reason why these should be `defsubsts'? Have you done benchmarking to support such a supposition? As they don't fit the Emacs criteria, and there is no code comment that calls out why they - exceptionally - should be defsubsts in spite of not fulfilling the criteria, a priori they should not be defsubsts. The burden of proof lies with a claim that they - exceptionally - should be. Not to mention that there is less and less need for using defsubst. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Oct 30 08:45:42 2019 Received: (at 13764) by debbugs.gnu.org; 30 Oct 2019 12:45:42 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49440 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iPnM6-0008Un-Ah for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 08:45:42 -0400 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]:55856) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iPnM3-0008Ud-RK for 13764@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 08:45:41 -0400 Received: from cm-84.212.202.86.getinternet.no ([84.212.202.86] helo=marnie) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iPnLz-0005wN-HZ; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 13:45:37 +0100 From: Lars Ingebrigtsen To: Drew Adams Subject: Re: bug#13764: 24.3.50; please do not use defsubst for `font-lock-(apply-highlight|fontify-anchored-keywords)' References: <220CC265C06944E69F89E1F29796C873@us.oracle.com> <87lh3x2wnn.fsf@gnus.org> <090ab034-aeeb-432e-b597-a138c5c13efa@default> Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 13:45:35 +0100 In-Reply-To: <090ab034-aeeb-432e-b597-a138c5c13efa@default> (Drew Adams's message of "Fri, 29 Apr 2016 09:17:25 -0700 (PDT)") Message-ID: <87tv7qv1u8.fsf@gnus.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "quimby.gnus.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: Drew Adams writes: >> > I see no reason why these function should not be defuns. >> >> Presumably they are that way because of efficiency concerns. Have you >> done benchmarking to compare the impact of these defsubsts [...] Content analysis details: (-2.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 13764 Cc: 13764@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Drew Adams writes: >> > I see no reason why these function should not be defuns. >> >> Presumably they are that way because of efficiency concerns. Have you >> done benchmarking to compare the impact of these defsubsts turning into >> defuns? > > Oh come on. Why such a presumption? Did you look at the code? I take that as a "no", and I'm closing this bug report as a "wontfix". -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Oct 30 08:45:48 2019 Received: (at control) by debbugs.gnu.org; 30 Oct 2019 12:45:48 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49443 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iPnMB-0008V6-N2 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 08:45:47 -0400 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]:55870) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iPnM9-0008Uy-RU for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 08:45:46 -0400 Received: from cm-84.212.202.86.getinternet.no ([84.212.202.86] helo=marnie) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1iPnM7-0005wU-0Q for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 30 Oct 2019 13:45:45 +0100 Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 13:45:42 +0100 Message-Id: <87sgnav1u1.fsf@gnus.org> To: control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Lars Ingebrigtsen Subject: control message for bug #13764 X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "quimby.gnus.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: tags 13764 wontfix close 13764 quit Content analysis details: (-2.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: control X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) tags 13764 wontfix close 13764 quit From unknown Sun Aug 17 01:02:07 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: bug archived. Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2019 12:24:08 +0000 User-Agent: Fakemail v42.6.9 # This is a fake control message. # # The action: # bug archived. thanks # This fakemail brought to you by your local debbugs # administrator