Follow-up Comment #14, bug #68145 (group groff): [comment #10 comment #10:]
> In other words, -M arguments prefix the usual search path for macro files.
So as far as I understand, -M affects only how troff generates ditroff and
doesn't affect postprocessing (grotty has no -M parameter). Please correct me
if I'm wrong.
Hm, in section "Files" of grotty manual:
/usr/share/groff/1.24.0/tmac/tty.tmac
defines macros for use with the ascii, latin1, and utf8 output
devices. It is automatically loaded by troffrc when any of those output
devices is selected.
Is this path hardcoded at compile time for grotty? Although, grotty-1.24.0
processes ditroff generated by troff-1.24.0 with 1.23.0/tmac as fast as
grotty-1.23.0 processes ditroff generated by troff-1.23.0 with 1.23.0/tmac.
I'm trying to make sure that I measure right things to quantitatively describe
the qualitative "man pages started appear longer".
Can also fonts directory affect somehow when output device is utf8 or ascii?
> My hunch--and it is only that--is that if memory starvation produced a
> _quadratic_ degradation in performance, then we'd see a much more dramatic
> increase in memory pressure.
Agree.
I observe this behavior on two machines: laptop with 32 GB RAM and desktop
with 128 GB RAM. Both running Arch, no heavy load in background, no fancy WM
etc.
For the case, glibc 2.43+r5+g856c426a7534-1, kernel 6.19.8.
> Can you re-run your test case using the -Z option so that _grotty_ is not
> involved at all?
Already tested using -Z, no significant difference between 1.23.0 and 1.24.0.
The latter is slightly longer, just by few percent.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?68145>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
