GNU bug report logs - #56682
Fix the long lines font locking related slowdowns

Previous Next

Full log

Message #445 received at 56682 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: gerd.moellmann <at> gmail.com, 56682 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, gregory <at> heytings.org,
 monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca
Subject: Re: bug#56682: Fix the long lines font locking related slowdowns
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2022 11:38:22 +0300

> From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
> Cc: Gregory Heytings <gregory <at> heytings.org>,  gerd.moellmann <at> gmail.com,
>   56682 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,  monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca
> Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2022 10:22:40 +0200
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> writes:
> 
> >> It's the same problem than with fontification-functions.  We cannot know 
> >> what all these hooks that are installed by major and minor modes will do, 
> >> we cannot hope to fix them one by one, so it seems to me that with 
> >> long_line_optimizations_p, which is an unusual case anyway, it makes sense 
> >> to "punish" them all in the same way.
> >
> > It sounds...too drastic.  Lars, WDYT?
> 
> I agree with Gregory that it makes sense to disable (some) fontification
> stuff in long-line buffers.  It much more important to be able to view
> and edit these files than getting fontification details completely
> correct.

No disagreement here, but I was asking about the proposal to make the
locked narrowing in effect when any pre-command-hook or
post-command-hook runs.  These are usually unrelated to
fontifications, although Gregory found an example where it is.

IOW, the issue for which I wanted to hear your opinion was whether you
think it's okay to preclude, in a buffer with long lines, all
pre/post-command-hooks from accessing the entire buffer.

Previous Next

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