From xemacs-m  Sun Feb  9 07:57:35 1997
Received: from ifi.uio.no (0@ifi.uio.no [129.240.64.2])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id HAA00476
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 07:57:34 -0600 (CST)
Received: from proletcult.slip.ifi.uio.no (root@xyplex07.uio.no [129.240.154.27]) by ifi.uio.no with ESMTP (8.6.11/ifi2.4) 
	id <OAA18086@ifi.uio.no> for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org> ; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 14:57:32 +0100
Received: (from larsi@localhost) by proletcult.slip.ifi.uio.no (8.8.2/8.8.2) id NAA15201; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 13:42:29 +0100
Sender: larsi@proletcult.slip.ifi.uio.no
To: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: Re: wot i need
References: <199702091140.AA266538445@martigny.ai.mit.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@ifi.uio.no>
Date: 09 Feb 1997 13:42:23 +0100
In-Reply-To: Bill Dubuque's message of Sun, 9 Feb 1997 06:40:43 -0500
Message-ID: <m2d8uaduc0.fsf@proletcult.slip.ifi.uio.no>
Lines: 46
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.12/Emacs 19.34
X-Face: &w!^oO<W.WBH]FsTP:P0f9X6M-ygaADlA_)eF$<UwQzj7:C=Gi<a?/_4$LX^@$Qq7-O&XHp
 lDARi8e8iT<(A$LWAZD*xjk^')/wI5nG;1cNB>~dS|}-P0~ge{$c!h\<y

Bill Dubuque <wgd@martigny.ai.mit.edu> writes:

> It would be useful to get more datapoints. If anyone else has
> XEmacs and FSF compiled on the same machine, please contrast
> their times on Kyle's original example, which he found twice 
> as slow in XEmacs:
> 
> (let ((i 0)) (while (< i 300000) (setq i (1+ i))))

I have a 486 running Linux, and I've compared Emacs 19.34 with
XEmacs 20.0 with Mule using this test:

(defun make-time-float (list)
  (+ (* 65536.0 (pop list)) (pop list)
     (/ (or (pop list) 0) 1e6)))

(defun time-loop ()
  (let ((t1 (current-time))
	t2)
    (let ((i 0)) (while (< i 300000) (setq i (1+ i))))
    (setq t2 (current-time))
    (- (make-time-float t2)
       (make-time-float t1))))

(time-loop)

And the results are:

=> 29.94636797904968 (XEmacs 20.0 w/Mule)
=> 24.478706955909729 (Emacs 19.34)

Byte-compiling the functions gives me this:

=> 6.397159934043884 (XEmacs 20.0 w/Mule compiled)
=> 5.5184320211410522 (Emacs 19.34 compiled)

So this doesn't tally up well with the results Kyle got.  However,
I am seeing the same massive slowdowns under XEmacs 20.0 that he's
seing when (for instance) loading .elc files.  When trying to
reproduce the slowdown by doing simple things (like this timing
example, or calling functions, or most anything else as simple), I get
the same results -- XEmacs runs ~20% slower than Emacs, not 100%.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
  larsi@ifi.uio.no * Lars Ingebrigtsen

