Re: scratch/accurate-warning-pos: Solid progress: the branch now bootstraps.

[Gemini Lasswell]

Alan Mackenzie <address@hidden> writes:

> The branch scratch/accurate-warning-pos now bootstraps.  (It also now
> runs on optimised builds. ;-)
>
> Its bootstrap is a mere 7.1% slower than master's.

Hi Alan,

Great progress!  There are clearly benefits to Emacs Lisp programmers
(especially if errors and debugger backtraces can someday have accurate
source positions), to be weighed against the cost of a slower Emacs for
all the non-Lisp programmers and non-programmers who work with Emacs.  I
don't know how to begin to sort that out, but since I've been working on
creating a benchmark suite for Emacs, I'm thrilled you've given me such
an interesting test case. :)

Here's how much longer in percentage terms the tasks in my nascent
benchmark suite take in your branch compared to 5b218be0c3, the commit
your branch is based on, running on my newish Linux laptop.  I'll push
my benchmarking project to a scratch branch soon so you can see the code
which was benchmarked.

cus-theme-tasks-load-tango: 9%
bytecomp-tasks-compile-doc: 24%
kmacro-tasks-edit-lines: 18%
fill-tasks-fill-paragraph: 15%
cmds-tasks-forward-line: 5%
data-tasks-prime-p: 1%
emacs-tasks-startup: 4%
syntax-tasks-backward-word: 23%
syntax-tasks-forward-word: 20%

Here's a benchmark report, which contains the measurements from which I
calculated those percentages:

report.org
Description: Text document

Each timing value in this file is the average of 30 runs of the task.
Here's the same report, exported with graphs from gnuplot (and page
breaks in the wrong places):

report.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document