GNU bug report logs - #78474
31.0.50; Wrong char insertion in rxvt

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault <at> gnu.org>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Cc: bzg <at> gnu.org, Sebastien.Hinderer <at> inria.fr, rpluim <at> gmail.com, manuel <at> ledu-giraud.fr, 78474 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#78474: 31.0.50; Wrong char insertion in rxvt
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2025 22:29:30 +0200

Eli Zaretskii, le mer. 23 juil. 2025 20:06:57 +0300, a ecrit:
> Evaluate this in an interactive session, then visit src/xdisp.c, and
> invoke the command.  Wait until it finishes scrolling and record the
> time it shows.

Ok, thanks.

> Note: you need to run this in a fresh Emacs session, i.e. never run
> the benchmark twice in the same session.

Yes, sure.

I performed 10 measurements with the venerable xterm, and a couple
measurements with the vte-based mate-terminal, rxvt, and Eterm.
The choice of terminal hardly changes anything at all. It's emacs that
consumes one core 100%, while the terminal consumes 1-3% only.

Here are the measurements:

With \e[C:

xterm
18.515394
18.516340
18.453698
18.576480
18.454190
18.530091
18.392103
18.484421
18.422035
18.469797

mate
18.595872
18.501546

rxvt
18.500069
18.423311

Eterm
18.428876
18.460808

With \t\b:

xterm
18.310599
18.583103
18.464580
18.516165
18.424753
18.498778
18.377242
18.445612
18.407960
18.505874

mate
18.551353
18.503176

rxvt
18.396504
18.340624

Eterm
18.544554
18.423233

So the average difference on xterm (0.03s) is completely inside the standard deviation (~0.06s)...

Samuel

Previous Next

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