From unknown Sat Aug 16 16:24:35 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#6365: bidi data structure inefficiencies Resent-From: Dan Nicolaescu Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 03:22:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: report 6365 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: 6365@debbugs.gnu.org X-Debbugs-Original-To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Received: via spool by submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B.12758808999611 (code B ref -1); Mon, 07 Jun 2010 03:22:02 +0000 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 7 Jun 2010 03:21:39 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OLSuB-0002Uy-8X for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 06 Jun 2010 23:21:39 -0400 Received: from mx10.gnu.org ([199.232.76.166]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OLSu9-0002Ut-RI for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 06 Jun 2010 23:21:38 -0400 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]:33263) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1OLSu6-0002JX-By for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 06 Jun 2010 23:21:34 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=39408 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OLSu5-0006ZH-RY for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Jun 2010 23:21:33 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1OLSu5-0002JR-3u for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Jun 2010 23:21:33 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0 (2005-09-13) on monty-python X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=ham version=3.1.0 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]:36128) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1OLSu4-0002JN-TL for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Jun 2010 23:21:32 -0400 Received: from dann by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OLSu4-0005WP-Pb for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Jun 2010 23:21:32 -0400 From: Dan Nicolaescu Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2010 23:21:32 -0400 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-Spam-Score: -6.5 (------) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 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: -6.5 (------) Some bidi data structures are bigger that they need to be, this probably results in additional cache misses. Examples: struct bidi_saved_info could use bitfields for the bidi_type_t members Same for bidi_stack bidi_it could use bitfields for a lot of it's members. From unknown Sat Aug 16 16:24:35 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#6365: bidi data structure inefficiencies Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 13:38:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 6365 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Dan Nicolaescu Cc: 6365@debbugs.gnu.org Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii Received: via spool by 6365-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B6365.127591782931065 (code B ref 6365); Mon, 07 Jun 2010 13:38:01 +0000 Received: (at 6365) by debbugs.gnu.org; 7 Jun 2010 13:37:09 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OLcVp-000850-AA for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2010 09:37:09 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OLcVn-00084t-Aa for 6365@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2010 09:37:07 -0400 Received: from eliz by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OLcVi-0004qQ-JG; Mon, 07 Jun 2010 09:37:02 -0400 From: Eli Zaretskii In-reply-to: (message from Dan Nicolaescu on Sun, 06 Jun 2010 23:21:32 -0400) References: Message-Id: Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 09:37:02 -0400 X-Spam-Score: -5.2 (-----) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 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: -6.5 (------) > From: Dan Nicolaescu > Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2010 23:21:32 -0400 > Cc: > > Some bidi data structures are bigger that they need to be, this > probably results in additional cache misses. > Examples: > > struct bidi_saved_info could use bitfields for the bidi_type_t members > Same for bidi_stack > > bidi_it could use bitfields for a lot of it's members. Thanks for the critical review and suggestions. I started a discussion thread on emacs-devel about this, because I'm not sure fixing this is a straight-forward matter. I will implement whatever conclusions are reached there as part of solving this bug report. From unknown Sat Aug 16 16:24:35 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#6365: bidi data structure inefficiencies Resent-From: Glenn Morris Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 20:53:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 6365 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: 6365@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 6365-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B6365.131793432330049 (code B ref 6365); Thu, 06 Oct 2011 20:53:01 +0000 Received: (at 6365) by debbugs.gnu.org; 6 Oct 2011 20:52:03 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RBuvD-0007oc-NK for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 06 Oct 2011 16:52:03 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RBuvC-0007oW-ER for 6365@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 06 Oct 2011 16:52:02 -0400 Received: from rgm by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RBuv0-0002i7-SG; Thu, 06 Oct 2011 16:51:50 -0400 From: Glenn Morris References: X-Spook: Agfa infowar Islam Abduganievich Karimov Adriatic Noriega X-Ran: ^m#va@!%|X/Gj*=f@1yo+BK+6yDN"[x;v\RO]h8RVqn,x/*.tr7%4}ax}4.\'y51qQG}D( X-Hue: green X-Attribution: GM Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 16:51:50 -0400 In-Reply-To: (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Mon, 07 Jun 2010 09:37:02 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus (www.gnus.org), GNU Emacs (www.gnu.org/software/emacs/) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Score: -6.4 (------) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 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: -6.4 (------) Eli Zaretskii wrote: > Thanks for the critical review and suggestions. I started a > discussion thread on emacs-devel about this, because I'm not sure > fixing this is a straight-forward matter. I will implement whatever > conclusions are reached there as part of solving this bug report. Did anything happen with this? From unknown Sat Aug 16 16:24:35 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#6365: bidi data structure inefficiencies Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 21:09:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 6365 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Glenn Morris Cc: 6365@debbugs.gnu.org Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii Received: via spool by 6365-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B6365.13179353362031 (code B ref 6365); Thu, 06 Oct 2011 21:09:02 +0000 Received: (at 6365) by debbugs.gnu.org; 6 Oct 2011 21:08:56 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RBvBY-0000Wh-7p for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 06 Oct 2011 17:08:56 -0400 Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il ([80.179.55.166]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RBvBW-0000WV-Ks for 6365@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 06 Oct 2011 17:08:55 -0400 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0LSN00M00X34TJ00@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for 6365@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 06 Oct 2011 23:04:51 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.124.91.138]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0LSN00M6VX82C2B0@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Thu, 06 Oct 2011 23:04:51 +0200 (IST) Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 23:04:54 +0200 From: Eli Zaretskii In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il Message-id: <83fwj5hlvt.fsf@gnu.org> References: X-Spam-Score: -2.1 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 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: -2.1 (--) > From: Glenn Morris > Cc: 6365@debbugs.gnu.org > Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 16:51:50 -0400 > > Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > Thanks for the critical review and suggestions. I started a > > discussion thread on emacs-devel about this, because I'm not sure > > fixing this is a straight-forward matter. I will implement whatever > > conclusions are reached there as part of solving this bug report. > > Did anything happen with this? See the discussion that started here: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2010-06/msg00164.html AFAIU, the conclusion was that there are no evident optimizations, and that only profiling the current code against an alternative can tell which one is better. FWIW, I don't plan working o this any time soon. From unknown Sat Aug 16 16:24:35 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#6365: bidi data structure inefficiencies Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 21:14:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 6365 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: rgm@gnu.org Cc: 6365@debbugs.gnu.org Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii Received: via spool by 6365-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B6365.13179356302465 (code B ref 6365); Thu, 06 Oct 2011 21:14:02 +0000 Received: (at 6365) by debbugs.gnu.org; 6 Oct 2011 21:13:50 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RBvGH-0000di-Ql for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 06 Oct 2011 17:13:49 -0400 Received: from mtaout22.012.net.il ([80.179.55.172]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RBvGG-0000dV-1B for 6365@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 06 Oct 2011 17:13:48 -0400 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0LSN00F00XGY7E00@a-mtaout22.012.net.il> for 6365@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 06 Oct 2011 23:13:18 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.124.91.138]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0LSN00EXEXM5MOD0@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Thu, 06 Oct 2011 23:13:18 +0200 (IST) Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 23:13:21 +0200 From: Eli Zaretskii In-reply-to: <83fwj5hlvt.fsf@gnu.org> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il Message-id: <83ehyphlhq.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83fwj5hlvt.fsf@gnu.org> X-Spam-Score: -2.1 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 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: -2.1 (--) > Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 23:04:54 +0200 > From: Eli Zaretskii > Cc: 6365@debbugs.gnu.org > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2010-06/msg00164.html > > AFAIU, the conclusion was that there are no evident optimizations, and > that only profiling the current code against an alternative can tell > which one is better. > > FWIW, I don't plan working o this any time soon. Oh, and I did convert 2 members of `struct bidi_it' from `int's to 1-bit fields. From unknown Sat Aug 16 16:24:35 2025 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.427 (Entity 5.427) X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org From: help-debbugs@gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System) To: Dan Nicolaescu Subject: bug#6365: closed (Re: bug#6365: bidi data structure inefficiencies) Message-ID: References: <7uy5wx3jdr.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> X-Gnu-PR-Message: they-closed 6365 X-Gnu-PR-Package: emacs Reply-To: 6365@debbugs.gnu.org Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 21:23:02 +0000 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----------=_1317936182-3281-1" This is a multi-part message in MIME format... ------------=_1317936182-3281-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Your bug report #6365: bidi data structure inefficiencies which was filed against the emacs package, has been closed. The explanation is attached below, along with your original report. If you require more details, please reply to 6365@debbugs.gnu.org. --=20 6365: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D6365 GNU Bug Tracking System Contact help-debbugs@gnu.org with problems ------------=_1317936182-3281-1 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received: (at 6365-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 6 Oct 2011 21:22:53 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RBvP3-0000qb-Ik for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 06 Oct 2011 17:22:53 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RBvP1-0000qT-Rz for 6365-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 06 Oct 2011 17:22:52 -0400 Received: from rgm by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RBvOq-0004PY-Fq; Thu, 06 Oct 2011 17:22:40 -0400 From: Glenn Morris To: 6365-done@debbugs.gnu.org Subject: Re: bug#6365: bidi data structure inefficiencies References: <83fwj5hlvt.fsf@gnu.org> <83ehyphlhq.fsf@gnu.org> X-Spook: AFSPC data haven Ft. Knox industrial intelligence NASA X-Ran: [dR=MT_{yfVgcOr#HCFIUV5sYTRES4Wu{yy7@e@d6*V~CPHy_g8+k/J&.I]m[zdIj~/\y' X-Hue: red X-Debbugs-No-Ack: yes X-Attribution: GM Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 17:22:40 -0400 In-Reply-To: <83ehyphlhq.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Thu, 06 Oct 2011 23:13:21 +0200") Message-ID: <7uy5wx3jdr.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus (www.gnus.org), GNU Emacs (www.gnu.org/software/emacs/) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Spam-Score: -6.4 (------) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 6365-done X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 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: -6.4 (------) Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2010-06/msg00164.html >> >> AFAIU, the conclusion was that there are no evident optimizations, and >> that only profiling the current code against an alternative can tell >> which one is better. >> >> FWIW, I don't plan working o this any time soon. > > Oh, and I did convert 2 members of `struct bidi_it' from `int's to > 1-bit fields. OK; doesn't seem worth keeping this open as a bug then. ------------=_1317936182-3281-1 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 7 Jun 2010 03:21:39 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OLSuB-0002Uy-8X for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 06 Jun 2010 23:21:39 -0400 Received: from mx10.gnu.org ([199.232.76.166]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OLSu9-0002Ut-RI for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 06 Jun 2010 23:21:38 -0400 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]:33263) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1OLSu6-0002JX-By for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 06 Jun 2010 23:21:34 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=39408 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OLSu5-0006ZH-RY for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Jun 2010 23:21:33 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1OLSu5-0002JR-3u for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Jun 2010 23:21:33 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0 (2005-09-13) on monty-python X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=ham version=3.1.0 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]:36128) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1OLSu4-0002JN-TL for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Jun 2010 23:21:32 -0400 Received: from dann by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OLSu4-0005WP-Pb for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 06 Jun 2010 23:21:32 -0400 To: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Subject: bidi data structure inefficiencies From: Dan Nicolaescu X-Debbugs-No-Ack: yes Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2010 23:21:32 -0400 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-Spam-Score: -6.5 (------) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 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: -6.5 (------) Some bidi data structures are bigger that they need to be, this probably results in additional cache misses. Examples: struct bidi_saved_info could use bitfields for the bidi_type_t members Same for bidi_stack bidi_it could use bitfields for a lot of it's members. ------------=_1317936182-3281-1--