From xemacs-m  Fri Jun 13 04:44:51 1997
Received: from mailbox1.ucsd.edu (mailbox1.ucsd.edu [132.239.1.53])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA02938
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Fri, 13 Jun 1997 04:44:50 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from sdnp5.ucsd.edu (sdnp5.ucsd.edu [132.239.79.10]) by mailbox1.ucsd.edu (8.8.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id CAA29682 for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Fri, 13 Jun 1997 02:44:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by sdnp5.ucsd.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id CAA19858; Fri, 13 Jun 1997 02:45:10 -0700
To: xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: Re: Warsaw: SUCCESS on sparc-sun-solaris2.5
References: <kigbu5jgwdz.fsf@jagor.srce.hr>
X-Face: "oX;zS#-JU$-,WKSzG.1gGE]x^cIg!hW.dq>.f6pzS^A+(k!T|M:}5{_%>Io<>L&{hO7W4cicOQ|>/lZ1G(m%7iaCf,6Qgk0%%Bz7b2-W3jd0m_UG\Y;?]}4s0O-U)uox>P3JN)9cm]O\@,vy2e{`3pb!"pqmRy3peB90*2L
Mail-Copies-To: never
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.108)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
From: David Moore <dmoore@ucsd.edu>
Date: 13 Jun 1997 02:45:09 -0700
In-Reply-To: Hrvoje Niksic's message of "07 Jun 1997 01:11:03 +0200"
Message-ID: <rv206625wa.fsf@sdnp5.ucsd.edu>
Lines: 19
X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.56/XEmacs 20.3(beta6) - "Moscow"

Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic@srce.hr> writes:

>   WARNING: ---------------------------------------------------------
>   WARNING: Compiling in support for runtime error checking.
>   WARNING: XEmacs will run noticeably more slowly as a result.
>   WARNING: Error checking is on by default for XEmacs beta releases.
>   WARNING: ---------------------------------------------------------
> 
> A question: What exactly do we get with this error checking?  I can't
> really afford the substantial slowdown in everyday work, unless it
> offers real advantages otherwise.

A lot of the checking is for extents consistency, dating back to when
the extents datastructures were being developed.  It really pounds on
the extent lists every chance it gets making things quite slow.

There are some other checks like GC checking which can't really detect
gcpro problems but was trying to help when the gc code itself was being
debugged.

