From xemacs-m  Sat Feb  8 19:50:40 1997
Received: from crystal.WonderWorks.COM (crystal.WonderWorks.com [192.203.206.1])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA16109
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 19:50:39 -0600 (CST)
Received: by crystal.WonderWorks.COM 
	id QQccbv19986; Sat, 8 Feb 1997 20:50:40 -0500 (EST)
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 20:50:40 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <QQccbv19986.199702090150@crystal.WonderWorks.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Kyle Jones <kyle_jones@wonderworks.com>
To: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: Re: wot i need
In-Reply-To: <m27mkiu8ku.fsf@altair.xemacs.org>
References: <199702082350.AA191485848@martigny.ai.mit.edu>
	<m27mkiu8ku.fsf@altair.xemacs.org>

Steven L. Baur writes:
 > [...]
 > ;;; loop-test.el -- basic test of Emacs lisp evaluation speed
 > ;; execute by starting emacs -q, loading this file and doing M-x eval-buffer
 > [...]

    emacs 19.34

    Function Name    Call Count  Elapsed Time  Average Time
    ===============  ==========  ============  ============
    bench-mark-loop  1           142.53392600  142.53392600

    xemacs 20.0 --with-mule=no

    Function Name    Call Count  Elapsed Time  Average Time
    ===============  ==========  ============  ============
    bench-mark-loop  1           203.9946      203.9946

    xemacs 20.0 --with-mule=yes

    Function Name    Call Count  Elapsed Time  Average Time
    ===============  ==========  ============  ============
    bench-mark-loop  1           206.25509099  206.25509099

After spending hours looking at the code, I don't see a good
reason for this difference.  That leads me to the conclusion that
the cause is deeper.  Maybe gcc on a 486 doesn't code the
underlying Lisp_Object representation very well for the XEmacs
style object layout.  This would have profound effects on pretty
much everything.

