[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Extra info about 109170

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: Extra info about 109170
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 06:00:17 +0300

> From: Stefan Monnier <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden
> Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 18:11:11 -0400
> >> The problem was that kill-buffer was taking up more than 10% of the time
> >> of execution, which is simply unjustified.  I only know of 2 ways to fix
> >> such a problem:
> >> - speed up kill-buffer.
> >> - call kill-buffer less often.
> >> (tho I guess you can also "fix" it by slowing down everything else,
> >> but that's not very interesting, is it?).
> >> So unless you mean that the right thing to do was to reduce calls to
> >> kill-buffer, I don't know what else you might have wanted.
> > I think, if we want to speed up byte compilation, the right thing is
> > to speed the compilation itself, not buffer-killing whose relevance to
> > byte compilation is, well, questionable.
> I'm not sure if that means you disagree with my above analysis (if so,
> I don't know with which part), or if you do agree with it but think that
> the solution should be to reduce the number of calls to kill-buffer.

I simply don't think we should pay attention to kill-buffer here.  It
takes only 12% of the run time in this case, and is not an important
operation in general to invest efforts in speeding it up.

reply via email to

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