[Top][All Lists]

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

bug#14886: Fwd: bug#14886: Fwd: A significant slowdown calling font-lock

From: Alan Mackenzie
Subject: bug#14886: Fwd: bug#14886: Fwd: A significant slowdown calling font-lock-fontify-buffer from a hook
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 09:35:56 +0000
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

Hi, Juanma.

On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 11:32:03PM +0200, Juanma Barranquero wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 9:44 PM, Alan Mackenzie <address@hidden> wrote:

> > In the trunk, the entire buffer seems to get fontified, taking ~28s on my
> > machine.  I think the definition of `font-lock-fontify-buffer' has
> > changed.  Could this change explain the difference in timings you see?

> Yes, I suppose so.

> > I'm not sure I'm getting very far, here.  IIUC, the problem is that the
> > initial f-l-fontify-buffer is taking around 72s in some circumstances, as
> > opposed to 18s (on JB's machine).  I can't reproduce the problem.

> Sorry, I don't understand. The bug is not that it takes 18s or 72s, is
> that it goes from less than two seconds (in 24.3) to tens of seconds
> (in trunk). Do you see that problem or don't you?

I see the phenomenon, yes, but I'm not sure it counts as a problem.  To
completely fontify the xdisp.c buffer takes 28s, or perhaps 18s on a very
fast machine.  xdisp.c is ~30,000 lines.  It does not take two seconds to
fontify on any ordinary hardware.

On Emacs 24.3, I'm convinced that a full fontification is _not_ taking
place - merely the fontification by jit-lock of the visible window.  On
the trunk the full fontification is getting done.

I've tried a brief ediff between the font-lock files in 24.3 and trunk,
but haven't spotted the difference yet in font-lock-fontify-buffer which
I suspect is there.  Stefan?

>     Juanma

Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

reply via email to

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