Subject: Re: bug#70036 a fix that

From: Theodor Thornhill <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2024 18:33:36 +0200

On Apr 18, 2024 18:24, Eli Zaretskii <[email-masked]> wrote:

> From: João Távora <[email-masked]>
> Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2024 17:12:34 +0100
> Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
>
> > Profiles can mislead and they can lie.
>
> Theo's profiles attached to this issue were the best I could find.
> If the manner in which they were collected was enough to make a
> decision in a certainway, they should be good enough to make a decision
> in another way.
>
> But I fully agree we should have a more constrained test case.
>
> > It is much easier to time the
> > old and the new code doing the same jobs, and compare the times.
>
> So... that's what I did.

If you timed this code with the likes of benchmark-run, please show
the timings.  Profiles are not the best instrument for this kind of
decisions.

> Do you have a concrete idea of what this "job" is?

No, sorry.  If nothing else comes to mind, I think Theo had such a
scenario.

> Of course.  Let's have Theo do this comparison and perhaps describe
> in more detail the conditions in which he collected his profiles

Sure, it doesn't matter who does the measurements, as long as we have
them.

I'll make a simple recipe this evening. It will require an lsp server install, likely, but I'll do my best to keep it contained.

Theo