GNU bug report logs -
#64735
29.0.92; find invocations are ~15x slower because of ignores
Previous Next
Full log
Message #377 received at 64735 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
> Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2023 20:46:19 +0300
> Cc: luangruo <at> yahoo.com, sbaugh <at> janestreet.com, yantar92 <at> posteo.net,
> 64735 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> From: Dmitry Gutov <dmitry <at> gutov.dev>
>
> On 23/07/2023 14:18, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >> Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2023 13:46:30 +0300
> >> Cc:luangruo <at> yahoo.com,sbaugh <at> janestreet.com,yantar92 <at> posteo.net,
> >> 64735 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> >> From: Dmitry Gutov<dmitry <at> gutov.dev>
> >>
> >> On 23/07/2023 08:11, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >>> Even better: compute completion-regexp-list so that IGNOREs are
> >>> filtered by file-name-all-completions in the first place.
> >> We don't have lookahead in Emacs regexps, so I'm not sure it's possible
> >> to construct regexp that says "don't match entries A, B and C".
> > Well, maybe just having a way of telling file-name-all-completions to
> > negate the sense of completion-regexp-list would be enough to make
> > that happen?
>
> Some way to do that is certainly possible (e.g. a new option and
> corresponding code, maybe; maybe not), it's just that the person
> implementing it should consider the performance of the resulting solution.
I agree. However, if we are going to implement filtering of file
names, I don't think it matters where in the pipeline to perform the
filtering. The advantage of using completion-regexp-list is that the
matching is done in C, so is probably at least a tad faster.
> And, ideally, do all the relevant benchmarking when proposing the change.
Of course. Although the benchmarks until now already show quite a
variability.
This bug report was last modified 1 year and 273 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.