|
From: | Andreas Röhler |
Subject: | Re: C and Emacs Lisp code parts |
Date: | Wed, 6 Jul 2016 09:25:54 +0200 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/45.1.0 |
On 06.07.2016 00:48, John Wiegley wrote:
Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:In which you were asked to provide some numbers, but gave none. Please do provide them, and perhaps that bug could be taken care of.Until we have numbers, no action will be taken here. I am still of the position that *more* code should be moved from C to Emacs Lisp, and not the other way around. If there are cases where this might be a bad idea, measurement is needed to convince me. As others have said, performance is a complex beast, and human guesses about how a modern machine operates are more often wrong than not.
M-x elp-instrument-function RET define-abbrevs RET do some edits M-x elp-results RET abbrev--describe 36050 15.224345396 0.0004223119 abbrev-edit-save-buffer 1 8.034011581 8.034011581 abbrev-edit-save-to-file 1 8.033998314 8.033998314 abbrev--write 18025 5.8414600190 0.0003240754 define-abbrevs 1 1.334075568 1.334075568 abbrev-get 107835 0.5151135200 4.776...e-06 abbrev-table-get 36964 0.1173239610 3.174...e-06 abbrev-table-put 18320 0.0690998279 3.771...e-06 abbrev-table-empty-p 584 0.010703864 1.832...e-05 abbrev-table-p 584 0.0050513859 8.649...e-06 abbreviate-file-name 91 0.002899625 3.186...e-05 abbrev-table-name 2 0.000254252 0.000127126 abbrev-mode 1 1.4463e-05 1.4463e-05
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |