* why so many kill-all-local-variables
@ 1999-07-22 22:32 Wes Hardaker
1999-08-27 21:38 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Wes Hardaker @ 1999-07-22 22:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
I have a annoyingly slow machine at work (ok, its not that bad, but
its not great). So I decided to see what profiling gave me...
Not surprisingly, searching came out high on top (no surprise), but
garbage collection and kill-all-local-variables dominated the scene.
This made me wonder why killing the local variables was needed so
much? I would think that you merely add to them or don't? I'm
wondering if this is a major source of the garbage collection that is
taking place (doubt it) and if they can be reduced?
Function Name Ticks %/Total Call Count
================================================ ===== ======= ==========
(in garbage collection) 3412 52.760
kill-all-local-variables 293 4.531 1824
re-search-forward 248 3.835 35824
get-buffer-create 192 2.969 3640
Function Name Ticks %/Total Call Count
================================================ ===== ======= ==========
(in garbage collection) 2505 53.434
kill-all-local-variables 222 4.735 1366
re-search-forward 178 3.797 26614
get-buffer-create 140 2.986 2716
Function Name Ticks %/Total Call Count
================================================ ===== ======= ==========
(in garbage collection) 3412 53.014
kill-all-local-variables 293 4.553 1824
re-search-forward 248 3.853 35822
get-buffer-create 191 2.968 3629
--
"Ninjas aren't dangerous. They're more afraid of you than you are of them."
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: why so many kill-all-local-variables
1999-07-22 22:32 why so many kill-all-local-variables Wes Hardaker
@ 1999-08-27 21:38 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
1999-09-01 16:59 ` Wes Hardaker
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen @ 1999-08-27 21:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
Wes Hardaker <wjhardaker@ucdavis.edu> writes:
> Not surprisingly, searching came out high on top (no surprise), but
> garbage collection and kill-all-local-variables dominated the scene.
> This made me wonder why killing the local variables was needed so
> much? I would think that you merely add to them or don't? I'm
> wondering if this is a major source of the garbage collection that is
> taking place (doubt it) and if they can be reduced?
[...]
> kill-all-local-variables 293 4.531 1824
This function should normally only be called when a new major mode is
instated, but I guess you don't have 1824 different buffers, huh?
Is it Gnus that's calling this function all the time?
--
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: why so many kill-all-local-variables
1999-08-27 21:38 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
@ 1999-09-01 16:59 ` Wes Hardaker
1999-09-25 7:52 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Wes Hardaker @ 1999-09-01 16:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
>>>>> On 27 Aug 1999 23:38:17 +0200, Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> said:
Lars> Wes Hardaker <wjhardaker@ucdavis.edu> writes:
>> Not surprisingly, searching came out high on top (no surprise), but
>> garbage collection and kill-all-local-variables dominated the scene.
>> This made me wonder why killing the local variables was needed so
>> much? I would think that you merely add to them or don't? I'm
>> wondering if this is a major source of the garbage collection that is
>> taking place (doubt it) and if they can be reduced?
Lars> [...]
>> kill-all-local-variables 293 4.531 1824
Lars> This function should normally only be called when a new major mode is
Lars> instated, but I guess you don't have 1824 different buffers, huh?
Lars> Is it Gnus that's calling this function all the time?
Why is it needed at the beginning of a major mode? Why kill all the
local variables? Aren't you doing it from new buffers 99% of the
time?
(and, no, I don't, of course)
--
"Ninjas aren't dangerous. They're more afraid of you than you are of them."
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: why so many kill-all-local-variables
1999-09-01 16:59 ` Wes Hardaker
@ 1999-09-25 7:52 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen @ 1999-09-25 7:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
Wes Hardaker <wjhardaker@ucdavis.edu> writes:
> Why is it needed at the beginning of a major mode? Why kill all the
> local variables? Aren't you doing it from new buffers 99% of the
> time?
Urm; I don't quite know. It's documented somewhere that all major
modes should call that function.
--
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~1999-09-25 7:52 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
1999-07-22 22:32 why so many kill-all-local-variables Wes Hardaker
1999-08-27 21:38 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
1999-09-01 16:59 ` Wes Hardaker
1999-09-25 7:52 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).