From xemacs-m  Mon Dec  9 15:46:13 1996
Received: from xemacs.cs.uiuc.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xemacs.cs.uiuc.edu (8.8.3/8.8.3) with ESMTP id PAA20831; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 15:46:12 -0600 (CST)
Message-Id: <199612092146.PAA20831@xemacs.cs.uiuc.edu>
To: Steven L Baur <steve@miranova.com>
cc: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: Re: Benchmarking XEmacs versions (was Re: Additions to Shane Holder's bench.el) 
In-reply-to: Your message of "09 Dec 1996 12:47:47 PST."
             <m2iv6bcumk.fsf@altair.xemacs.org> 
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 1996 15:46:11 -0600
From: Chuck Thompson <cthomp@xemacs.org>

And after that large boring explanation I notice that the times are
actually pretty good relative to the other versions.  I told you the
cache worked well when it worked :-)  Tower of Hanoi is pretty elisp
intensive whereas Large File scrolling is almost all on the C side.
It is pretty well established that there is something wrong with our
bytecode handling causing it to be a lot less efficient than its Emacs
counterpart.  There isn't any good reason for that that I can think
of.  This is held up in part by the fact that we tend to be as fast or
faster on tests that are more heavily involving the C side.



			-Chuck

