Re: Speed difference in Gnus

[Ben Wing <ben@xemacs.org>]

Uwe Brauer wrote:

>>>>>>"David" == David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>   >> 
>   >>>>>>>> "David" == David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
>   >>> 
>   David> M-x elp-results RET
>   >>> 
>   >>> Thanks, this function also exists in xemacs (and I did not know
>   >>> about it), in any case the information is very aehm spare:
>   >> 
>   >> You should probably also instrument the `nnml', `imap', `mm' and `mml'
>   >> packages (and maybe some more depending on which operation you're
>   >> benchmarking -- I don't recall).
>
>
>   David> And it helps to run the test first before instrumenting it: that way
>   David> not only the autoloads get instrumented.
>
>Ok, thanks, I think now more or less I know how to proceed. As I said
>before the situation is sort of strange: for a certain amount of msg,
>say n, both emacsen are almost equal, gnu emacs a little faster, once
>the number of msg > n, then xemacs got stacked.
>  
>
it would be very nice to know where the problem is.  sometimes typing 
Control-Shift-G in XEmacs will break out and give you a backtrace. (it 
should always do that but maybe sometimes doesn't ...) If not, try 
setting Options->Troubleshooting->Debug on Quit, then manually do `kill 
-INT ###', where ### is the process id of XEmacs. (maybe it's `kill 
-SIGINT ###', i forget)

>I should add, that the information of the elp packages is detailed the
>profile-command of xemacs gives far more information. I don't know how
>important profiling is for emacs, but may that pkg could be ported?
>  
>
the problem is that the XEmacs profile stuff depends on C support, which 
is how it's able to do all the nifty things it does.

ben