From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/3788
Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: raeburn@cygnus.com (Ken Raeburn)
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general
Subject: Re: Byte-compiling the line specs
Date: 01 Nov 1995 11:34:31 -0500
Organization: Cygnus Support, Cambridge MA
Sender: raeburn@cygnus.com
Message-ID: <tx1n3agi99k.fsf@cujo.cygnus.com>
References: <199510311028.LAA06365@ssv4.dina.kvl.dk>
	<199510311052.CAA16806@desiree.teleport.com>
	<199510311413.PAA06470@ssv4.dina.kvl.dk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no
X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035144621 27259 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 20:10:21 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 20:10:21 +0000 (UTC)
X-From-Line: ding-request@ifi.uio.no  Wed Nov  1 09:43:39 1995
Return-Path: ding-request@ifi.uio.no
Original-Received: from ifi.uio.no (ifi.uio.no [129.240.64.2]) by miranova.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) with ESMTP id JAA00509 for <steve@miranova.com>; Wed, 1 Nov 1995 09:43:35 -0800
Original-Received: from cygnus.com (cygnus.com [140.174.1.1]) by ifi.uio.no with ESMTP (8.6.11/ifi2.4) 
	id <RAA13722@ifi.uio.no> for <ding@ifi.uio.no> ; Wed, 1 Nov 1995 17:34:39 +0100
Original-Received: from tweedledumb.cygnus.com (tweedledumb.cygnus.com [192.80.44.1]) by cygnus.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id IAA21266 for <ding@ifi.uio.no>; Wed, 1 Nov 1995 08:34:35 -0800
Original-Received: from cujo.cygnus.com by tweedledumb.cygnus.com (4.1/4.7) id AA02686; Wed, 1 Nov 95 11:34:33 EST
Original-Received: by cujo.cygnus.com; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/20Sep95-0235PM)
	id AA03412; Wed, 1 Nov 1995 11:34:32 -0500
Original-To: ding@ifi.uio.no
In-Reply-To: Per Abrahamsen's message of Tue, 31 Oct 1995 15:13:59 +0100
Original-Lines: 41
Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:3788
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:3788


   From: Per Abrahamsen <abraham@dina.kvl.dk>
   Date: Tue, 31 Oct 1995 15:13:59 +0100

   I get a bit more encouraging results with Emacs 19.29 and the
   following code:

   (let ((i 100000)
   ...


   Here is the timings:

			   Min     Max
   -----------------------------------------
   Empty Loop               5       6
   "99999"                  7       8
   princ                   13      14
   format                  19      20
   number-to-string        16      17

   The three first didn't generate any garbage, while the two last
   triggered a lot of garbage collections.

Did you byte-compile the loop?  If you're interested in comparing just the
formatting and insertion mechanisms, I think it's a good idea.

I tried it.  (Byte-compiled the file, read it into a buffer, moved to the
end, ran eval-current-buffer and then eval-last-sexp a couple of times, to
get three values.)  The princ test was faster than both number-to-string
and format by about a factor of 3 (though the numerous gc passes may have
been another factor contributing to getting different results from yours).
The number-to-string and format timings were closer than in your tests.

I also experimented with some elisp code for computing the character
values to insert, using % and / and adding to ?0, and using the "insert"
byte-code opcode.  That eliminated the garbage collection, but only saved
about 20% over number-to-string and format.

I think princ is probably the way to go, at least for numbers.  Numeric
fields padded to a specified width might be another matter, though....