GNU bug report logs - #19776
25.0.50; HTML rendering is very slow

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>, Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Cc: rms <at> gnu.org, 19776 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#19776: 25.0.50; HTML rendering is very slow
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2021 20:06:31 +0300

> From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
> Cc: stefan <at> marxist.se,  rms <at> gnu.org,  19776 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2021 18:22:27 +0200
> 
> I've now implemented the special form, and it works fine interpreted.
> But I'm having problems with the byte compilation.
> 
> So I've done a
> 
> (byte-defop-compiler-1 with-delayed-message)
> 
> and I think I understand that it wants to
> 
>   (byte-compile-form (nth 1 form))
>   (byte-compile-form (nth 2 form))
>   (byte-compile-body-do-effect (cdr (cdr (cdr form))))
> 
> But this would be the first special form that doesn't have a byte op
> code, probably?  Is that allowed?  I couldn't find any other examples of
> that being a thing.
> 
> I may well be missing something.
> 
> But if that's the case, and we don't want to use a byte op for this,
> then we'd have to make the special form into a normal macro, and then
> create two helper functions (to start and stop the atimer in
> question)...  which is perhaps others have done kinda similar things
> this way before.
> 
> But that's kinda meh.  Am I missing something, and it's easy to write
> the byte-compile-with-delayed-message function without a byte op?  Or
> should we use a byte op?

Stefan, any words of wisdom here?

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.