[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Profiling font-lock in xemacs

From: Ben Wing
Subject: Re: Profiling font-lock in xemacs
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 12:34:18 -0700

From: Richard Stallman <address@hidden>
Reply-To: address@hidden
To: address@hidden
CC: monnier+gnu/address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden
Subject: Re: Profiling font-lock in xemacs
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 02:41:06 -0600 (MDT)

It would be better not to have a delay of even .25 second in handling
C-g.  It ought to respond crisply.

of course, this is only on systems without SIGIO, where we have no choice but to implement such a thing.

If the delay were made smaller, eventually it would be insignificant.
I don't know at what point that is reached.

.25 second is pretty small. the smaller you go, of course, the more cpu time you potentially use up.

Currently on some systems C-g handling can involve a delay of up to 1
second, the wait for "polling for input".  That's because when it was
implemented there was no better facility to use than `alarm'.
Nowadays I gather there is one; we should change the polling interval
to something shorter than a second.

setitimer() on unix systems.

Join the worldÂ’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]