Re: Pixel-based display functions

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden
> Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2015 20:57:05 +1100
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > It looks like your previous timings, viz.
> >
> >> shr-insert-document                  1           5.11859327    5.11859327
> >> shr-pixel-buffer-width               1940        1.8345742170  0.0009456568
> >> shr-fold-lines                       1579        1.7859513240  0.0011310648
> >> shr-vertical-motion                  2625        1.7517520130  0.0006673341
> >
> > and
> >
> >> (benchmark-run 5000 (vertical-motion (cons (/ 700 (frame-char-width)) 0)))
> >> => (0.942894006 2 0.05716983599999992)
> >
> > were better, at least as far as vertical-motion was concerned.  What
> > happened that caused almost twofold degradation in speed of
> > shr-vertical-motion?  And why does a single call to vertical-motion
> > take ~0.2 msec, while a single call to shr-vertical-motion takes 1.7
> > msec, more than 8 times more?
> 
> My guess would be the extra function call overhead, along with the ELP
> instrumentation overhead.

That could explain the shr-vertical-motion vs vertical-motion alone,
but what about the twofold degradation of speed, from 1.75 sec for
2625 calls to 1.46 sec for 854 calls?

> In my Firefox, it's shown as "Extant Carnivora species [Show]".  Do you
> have Javascript switched on or something?  It's a JS table toggle or
> something. 

I have no idea, this is the default Firefox configuration.

Anyway, I see the "[show]" part now -- it'ss at the extreme right of
that line, so it was outside of my FOV.

But it is merely 500 lines, whereas your previous message said 1500, I
think, and showed 1500 calls to shr-fold-line to prove it.  What am I
missing?