Re: State of the overlay tree branch?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Stefan Monnier <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden
> Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 09:43:12 -0400
> 
> BTW, when thinking about how to avoid this loop's worst case (regardless
> if it's the source of the current problem), I was thinking that we could
> probably make that worst case even less likely by replacing the
> hardcoded "50" with a limit that grows as the loop progresses.
> 
> The patch below should make sure that the total number of iterations
> (through markers + through chars) is no more than 2*buffer-size, no matter
> how many markers there are.
> [ Rather than incrementing by 1 we should ideally increment by
>   a number that corresponds to how much slower is each iteration through
>   markers compared to the iteration through chars, but I have no idea
>   what that number would typically be.  ]
> 
> WDYT?

Could be a good idea, but I suggest to time its improvement before we
decide.  I've seen a few surprises in that area.