Increase BREAKCHECK_SKIP to make syntax highlighting faster #4708
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #4708 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 81.38% 81.37% -0.02%
==========================================
Files 114 114
Lines 145243 145244 +1
==========================================
- Hits 118205 118187 -18
- Misses 27038 27057 +19
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
|
Andy Massimino wrote:
As pointed out by @chrisbra in #2712 (comment), BREAKCHECK_SKIP hasn't been changed in a very long time. Is it necessary to check so often for a break now? Especially since breaks are now checked in many places. Using the script in #2712 (comment) does show some benefit.
I think we should also remove the difference between GUI and non-GUI
builds, I don't see a reason for it, especially on MS-Windows where a
console and GUI version run on the same system.
- Also SYN_TIME_LIMIT is not defined in syntax.c since it's defined in screen.c
Should move that to feature.h.
- Possibly should update the value for windows and mac.
What does this refer to?
…--
Every time I lose weight, it finds me again!
/// Bram Moolenaar -- [email protected] -- http://www.Moolenaar.net \\\
/// sponsor Vim, vote for features -- http://www.Vim.org/sponsor/ \\\
\\\ an exciting new programming language -- http://www.Zimbu.org ///
\\\ help me help AIDS victims -- http://ICCF-Holland.org ///
|
…ssing text
Problem: Too much overhead checking for CTRL-C while processing text.
Solution: Increase BREAKCHECK_SKIP. Remove the difference for when built
with the GUI. (suggested by Andy Massimino, closes vim/vim#4708)
vim/vim@b4fe0eb
Problem: Too much overhead checking for CTRL-C while processing text.
Solution: Increase BREAKCHECK_SKIP. Remove the difference for when built
with the GUI. (suggested by Andy Massimino, closes vim/vim#4708)
vim/vim@b4fe0eb
Problem: Too much overhead checking for CTRL-C while processing text.
Solution: Increase BREAKCHECK_SKIP. Remove the difference for when built
with the GUI. (suggested by Andy Massimino, closes vim/vim#4708)
vim/vim@b4fe0eb
…g text
Problem: Too much overhead checking for CTRL-C while processing text.
Solution: Increase BREAKCHECK_SKIP. Remove the difference for when built
with the GUI. (suggested by Andy Massimino, closes vim#4708)
|
should we make this change in os_mac.h too ? For some reason that hard-codes it to 32. I have been investigating significnt insert-mode performance issues that appear to suggest the |
|
Ben Jackson wrote:
should we make this change in os_mac.h too ? For some reason that
hard-codes it to 32. I have been investigating significnt insert-mode
performance issues that appear to suggest the `line_breakcheck()` in
`nfa_regmatch()` to be the issue; repeatable on very wide terminal,
but not on newly opened vim instance. I'm trying to work out a repro
case and full explanation, but came across this and was curious if the
macOS value is special for a specific reason ?
Good find. That must be a leftover from before Mac OS/X. Let's delete
it, it should be the same as on other Unix systems.
…--
Eight Megabytes And Continually Swapping.
/// Bram Moolenaar -- [email protected] -- http://www.Moolenaar.net \\\
/// sponsor Vim, vote for features -- http://www.Vim.org/sponsor/ \\\
\\\ an exciting new programming language -- http://www.Zimbu.org ///
\\\ help me help AIDS victims -- http://ICCF-Holland.org ///
|
|
I'll send a PR
|
As pointed out by @chrisbra in #2712 (comment), BREAKCHECK_SKIP hasn't been changed in a very long time. Is it necessary to check so often for a break now? Especially since breaks are now checked in many places. Using the script in #2712 (comment) does show some benefit.