[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#23002: 25.0.92; sluggish M-x
From: |
YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu |
Subject: |
bug#23002: 25.0.92; sluggish M-x |
Date: |
Wed, 16 Mar 2016 08:52:11 +0900 |
User-agent: |
Wanderlust/2.14.0 (Africa) SEMI/1.14.6 (Maruoka) FLIM/1.14.8 (Shijō) APEL/10.6 Emacs/22.3 (sparc-sun-solaris2.8) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI) |
>>>>> On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 10:21:36 -0400, Stefan Monnier
>>>>> <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> said:
>> However, the sluggishness during the evaluation of
>> execute-extended-command--shorter is common to the both ports on OS X,
>> or non-interrupt-driven systems that use polling with SIGALRM for
>> quit/while-no-input handling, in general. I'm thinkng about applying
>> the following patch to the Mac port, but it might also be useful for
>> other systems.
> Hmm... this seems to indicate that while-no-input is just not really
> working in those systems.
At least, not in a responsive way. I first tried to shorten the
polling interval in start_polling if Vthrow_on_input is non-nil. But
let-binding throw-on-input as in the definition of while-no-input was
not enough and we would need some explicit function call to activate
start_polling.
>> + ;; On non-interrupt-driven systems, while-no-input polls for
>> + ;; input every `polling-period' (default 2) seconds, and that is
>> + ;; not frequent enough. So we call input-pending-p manually.
>> + (if (and use-polling (input-pending-p))
>> + (signal 'quit nil))
> Hmm... I'm not sure I understand: if input-pending-p returns non-nil,
> why are we still in this loop?
> IOW, I get the impression that the above call to input-pending-p will
> end up triggering a kind of "poll" to fetch new input, so we should be
> able to arrange for this fetching to trigger whatever should normally be
> triggered by incoming input (e.g. getting out of the while-no-input
> loop), so we could just reduce the above 2 lines to a single call to
> `input-pending-p'.
> I understand this may not seem like a big progress, but "every bit
> counts" ;-) tho more seriously, I'm asking this mostly to better
> understand what's going on (but also because I get the impression that
> (signal 'quit nil) is not always the right thing to do).
Indeed. (if use-polling (input-pending-p)) does work.
YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu
mituharu@math.s.chiba-u.ac.jp
- bug#23002: 25.0.92; sluggish M-x, Leo Liu, 2016/03/12
- bug#23002: 25.0.92; sluggish M-x, Drew Adams, 2016/03/13
- bug#23002: 25.0.92; sluggish M-x, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/03/13
- bug#23002: 25.0.92; sluggish M-x, Leo Liu, 2016/03/14
- bug#23002: 25.0.92; sluggish M-x, YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu, 2016/03/15
- bug#23002: 25.0.92; sluggish M-x, Leo Liu, 2016/03/15
- bug#23002: 25.0.92; sluggish M-x, Stefan Monnier, 2016/03/15
- bug#23002: 25.0.92; sluggish M-x,
YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu <=
- bug#23002: 25.0.92; sluggish M-x, Stefan Monnier, 2016/03/15
- bug#23002: 25.0.92; sluggish M-x, Leo Liu, 2016/03/20