Re: Question about display engine

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 19:08:58 +0200
> From: Ergus <address@hidden>
> Cc: martin rudalics <address@hidden>, address@hidden
> 
> But after working on that parts I recognize that the actual
> algorithm for merge are extremely complicated and some parts are
> redundant. All the code is full of conditions and branch divergences
> and the design of faces infrastructure could be more efficient.

I don't think I agree.  Given the complexity of the face-related
functionalities -- face remapping, the need to recompute all the faces
when some basic face changes, the various sources of face-related
information for each buffer/string position, etc. -- I find the design
and implementation of face code quite elegant and easy to understand,
maintain and change.

> Code that is used very often like "PRODUCE_GLYPHS" checks 3 if conditions
> every time (we should unify at least the if/else to bypass directly to
> the pointer, asserting that it is always initialized in terminal or gui).

I don't think I see the optimization opportunity you are talking about
here.  If you want to make a produce_glyphs method available as a TTY
hook, then why do you think it will make any tangible change of code
efficiency?  It's just a dereference and a call through a function
pointer vs a test and a direct call.

> face_at_buffer_position and merge_face_ref are actually full of nested
> and nested conditional calls and even (direct and indirect) recursive
> calls. Some functions that could call merge_named_face I think they call
> merge_face_ref instead (with the extra checks and divergences). While
> other "low level" calls at the end also call merge_face_ref (probably
> for safety) ex get_lface_attributes, merge_face_vectors and so on.

All of this is necessary to support the immense flexibility of face-related
functionality we have, starting from the half a dozen different ways
Lisp can specify a face.  There's nothing redundant in that code,
AFAIK, and unlike you, I don't find it too complicated at all.

> I understand that all this is probably negligible... but all that
> inhibits many optimizations very important these days like code
> inlining, branch prediction and vectorization.

What can I say? code should be correct first, and fast only after
that.  If the functionality we want to support disables some
optimizations, so be it.  And I wouldn't worry about this particular
part of display code anyway, because the most expensive parts of
redisplay are elsewhere.  It should be clear from a simple
consideration: the number of face changes in a typical window is an
order of magnitude or more smaller than the number of characters and
other display elements in that window.  So if we want to optimize
redisplay, we should look at the 90% part of the code, not at the 10%.

> But also a big part of the code is needed just because the
> divergence between the tui and the gui code...

I don't think I follow.  There's no difference between TTY and GUI
frames wrt face handling, except where TTY color translation is
involved.

> if we unify the interfaces; then an important part of the
> code will be simplified and reduced and easier to maintain and modify.

Which interfaces would you like to unify?  I don't think I understand.