From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 20013 invoked from network); 16 Aug 2020 02:08:37 -0000 Received: from lists1.math.uh.edu (129.7.128.208) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 16 Aug 2020 02:08:37 -0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.math.uh.edu) by lists1.math.uh.edu with smtp (Exim 4.94) (envelope-from ) id 1k785R-007her-Oi; Sat, 15 Aug 2020 21:07:53 -0500 Received: from mx1.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.32]) by lists1.math.uh.edu with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94) (envelope-from ) id 1k785N-007hd0-CX for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Sat, 15 Aug 2020 21:07:49 -0500 Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([95.216.78.240]) by mx1.math.uh.edu with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94) (envelope-from ) id 1k785K-00B95C-LV for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Sat, 15 Aug 2020 21:07:49 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnus.org; s=20200322; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Message-ID:Date:Subject:From:To: Sender:Reply-To:Cc:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To:References:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=JvX6yGvJ1+9vsC51myBy6W/27DPsw5tHngIBlpCewsk=; b=rvtzN6O/A3MkCrwcwDoAXR9pwY zbF+YF8zgUZkho8qfJLfEPKE1JMaB/B7PatxwyCf34ecEnM+ZdwPOjLbiMgRW/qqNDQWCH5S3DI4X jEkqjGk2Cvtjx0ExIfkh0AxnHTGkOjYyzbbUvutE9plejfHK2JC+EOIVasAAzg2GQ8NM=; Received: from static.214.254.202.116.clients.your-server.de ([116.202.254.214] helo=ciao.gmane.io) by quimby with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1k785C-0006zN-9E for ding@gnus.org; Sun, 16 Aug 2020 04:07:41 +0200 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.io with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1k785B-0000vn-3g for ding@gnus.org; Sun, 16 Aug 2020 04:07:37 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ding@gnus.org From: Wayne Harris Subject: on a buffer performance test on GNU EMACS 28 Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2020 23:07:00 -0300 Message-ID: <861rk7xs1n.fsf@protonmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cancel-Lock: sha1:4YluUPPTkM2cibj+rKhOha/Q5as= List-ID: Precedence: bulk On Windows, I said M-x run-python, then said for i in range(100000): print(i) on both GNU EMACS 28 and GNU EMACS 24. I timed the speed of the buffer to scroll up. I used my own phone's stop watch. I started out the slow one first, which was EMACS 24, only after it was running I started the clock, then I started GNU EMACS 28's code. The result was GNU EMACS 28 finishes in less than 8.00 seconds. GNU EMACS 24 finishes after 24.44 seconds. Incredible difference. I suppose this will make me upgrade to GNU EMACS 28. How do you explain this marvelous difference? Could there i386 versus i686 have anything to do this? I would doubt it. (*) Versions GNU Emacs 24.3.1 (i386-mingw-nt6.2.9200) of 2013-03-17 on MARVIN GNU Emacs 28.0.50 (build 1, i686-w64-mingw32) of 2020-07-05