From xemacs-m  Sun Feb  9 05:40:50 1997
Received: from martigny.ai.mit.edu (martigny.ai.mit.edu [18.43.0.152])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id FAA00122
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 05:40:50 -0600 (CST)
Received: from berne.ai.mit.edu by martigny.ai.mit.edu with SMTP
	(1.40.112.8/16.2) id AA266538445; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 06:40:45 -0500
From: Bill Dubuque <wgd@martigny.ai.mit.edu>
Message-Id: <199702091140.AA266538445@martigny.ai.mit.edu>
Received: by berne.ai.mit.edu
	(1.40.112.8/16.2) id AA016328443; Sun, 9 Feb 1997 06:40:43 -0500
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 06:40:43 -0500
To: kyle_jones@wonderworks.com
Cc: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
In-Reply-To: <QQccbv19986.199702090150@crystal.WonderWorks.COM> (message from
	Kyle Jones on Sat, 8 Feb 1997 20:50:40 -0500 (EST))
Subject: Re: wot i need

: Date: Sat, 8 Feb 1997 20:50:40 -0500 (EST)
: From: Kyle Jones <kyle_jones@wonderworks.com>
: 
: 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.

But that conflicts with my timing of 19.11 as twice as fast as 19.12b25
in 486 Linux 1.2.1 for your simple while loop test below (unless 
Lisp_object changed between 19.11 and 19.12).

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))))

-Bill

