GNU bug report logs - #77924
31.0.50; [Feature branch] Change marker implementation

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Gerd Möllmann <gerd.moellmann <at> gmail.com>
To: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>, yantar92 <at> posteo.net, stefankangas <at> gmail.com, 77924 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#77924: 31.0.50; [Feature branch] Change marker implementation
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2025 18:32:00 +0200

Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

>>> Evaluate this, then invoke "M-x scroll-up-benchmark" in a large buffer
>>> with lots of non-ASCII characters.  Compare the timings between the
>>> two versions of Emacs.
>>
>> elb-scroll from elisp-bechmarks is basically
>>
>>       (dotimes (_ 10)
>>         (elb-smie-mode)
>>         (goto-char (point-min))
>>         (condition-case nil
>>             (while t (scroll-up nil) (redisplay 'force))
>>           (end-of-buffer nil))))))
>>
>> looks similar, but I don't know what elb-smie-mode does.
>
> It's a major mode for the C language, separate from CC-mode.
> [ It's basically "vendored" copy of the `sm-c-mode` that's on GNU
> ELPA.  ]

Ah, interesting. 

> So the benchmark tests scroll time, including jit/font-lock time.
> It uses its own copy of a major mode, so that you can compare "scroll +
> font-lock" performance between different Emacs releases without being
> affected by improvements/regressions in CC-mode itself.

So maybe it would make sense to run both that benchmark as-is plus one
without smie but with tamil.txt, I guess. Or in other words, now only
the as-is benchmark, because the tamil.txt results I've already posted.

Previous Next

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