Re: State of the overlay tree branch?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Sebastian Sturm <address@hidden>
> Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 13:25:19 +0100
> 
> I haven't tested this very extensively yet, but artificial benchmark 
> results are now comparable to the noverlay branch and editing seems 
> similarly fluid. Many thanks for that!

I'd be interested to see a comparison with a code that ignores the
markers entirely, and uses just these 4:

  CONSIDER (BUF_PT (b), BUF_PT_BYTE (b));
  CONSIDER (BUF_GPT (b), BUF_GPT_BYTE (b));
  CONSIDER (BUF_BEGV (b), BUF_BEGV_BYTE (b));
  CONSIDER (BUF_ZV (b), BUF_ZV_BYTE (b));

That's because BYTECHAR_DISTANCE_INCREMENT is probably a function of
the number of markers.