On Sat, Sep 24, 2005 at 09:11:19AM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> I propose to put the attached summarizing patch in, and test and
> profile again.
At least the update parts could be committed immediately as far as I am
coconcerned. They fix regressions.
Andre'
On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 10:34:25 +0100 Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > I propose to put the attached summarizing patch in, and test and
> profile
> > again.
>
> My comments are those of someone who is entirely ignorant of this part
> of
> the code, so please take
Martin Vermeer wrote:
> I propose to put the attached summarizing patch in, and test and profile
> again.
My comments are those of someone who is entirely ignorant of this part of
the code, so please take them with a pinch of salt. Well meaning
interference :)
Angus
Why the two if statements ra
On Sat, Sep 24, 2005 at 08:56:58AM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> BTW am I right in understanding that descending into the cursor stack means
> moving from bottom downward to top (tip?), increasing depth all the time? How
> logical...
Depends on your point of view. Implementation-wise it's certain
On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 08:56:58 +0300 (EEST) Martin Vermeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 17:26:48 +0200 Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > > I believe the culprit is
> > >
> > > if (!singlepar || pit1 == cursor_.pit(
On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 17:26:48 +0200 Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > I believe the culprit is
> >
> > if (!singlepar || pit1 == cursor_.pit())
> >
> > which I added several times to BufferView_pimpl.C:s metrics method.
> It
> > tests for
On Sep 23, 2005, at 10:26 AM, Martin Vermeer wrote:
On Fri, 2005-09-23 at 09:07 -0400, Bennett Helm wrote:
On Sep 23, 2005, at 8:59 AM, Bennett Helm wrote:
Cursor movement is a bit strange. This is especially noticeable
with page-up and page-down: it seems like the cursor moves, but the
scr
Martin Vermeer wrote:
I believe the culprit is
if (!singlepar || pit1 == cursor_.pit())
which I added several times to BufferView_pimpl.C:s metrics method. It
tests for being in the paragraph containing the cursor... but I believe
cursor_.pit() refers to the paragraph iterator _
On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 08:59:26AM -0400, Bennett Helm wrote:
> On Sep 22, 2005, at 5:57 PM, Martin Vermeer wrote:
...
> This patch does not help typing in footnotes, TeX Code, or other
> insets (margin pars, minipages, LyX notes, etc.). Insets within
> insets work, but are predictably slow a
On Fri, 2005-09-23 at 09:07 -0400, Bennett Helm wrote:
> On Sep 23, 2005, at 8:59 AM, Bennett Helm wrote:
>
> > Cursor movement is a bit strange. This is especially noticeable
> > with page-up and page-down: it seems like the cursor moves, but the
> > screen doesn't get redrawn. It also happen
On Sep 23, 2005, at 8:59 AM, Bennett Helm wrote:
Cursor movement is a bit strange. This is especially noticeable
with page-up and page-down: it seems like the cursor moves, but the
screen doesn't get redrawn. It also happens with moving the cursor
left and right (though not with up and down
On Sep 22, 2005, at 5:57 PM, Martin Vermeer wrote:
Give the attached a try.
I think it is quite a bit faster, and fixes your noticed side effect.
Wow! What a difference! Typing in long documents feels almost as fast
as 1.3.6, and processor usage no longer gets pegged at absurdly high
leve
Martin Vermeer wrote:
On Fri, 2005-09-23 at 08:58 +0200, Helge Hafting wrote:
Martin Vermeer wrote:
Give the attached a try.
I think it is quite a bit faster, and fixes your noticed side effect.
There may be other side effects; this patch touches so many things, it
scares me a bit
On Fri, 2005-09-23 at 08:58 +0200, Helge Hafting wrote:
> Martin Vermeer wrote:
>
> >Give the attached a try.
> >
> >I think it is quite a bit faster, and fixes your noticed side effect.
> >
> >There may be other side effects; this patch touches so many things, it
> >scares me a bit. But the spee
Martin Vermeer wrote:
Give the attached a try.
I think it is quite a bit faster, and fixes your noticed side effect.
There may be other side effects; this patch touches so many things, it
scares me a bit. But the speedup is so substantial that perhaps we
should just take the jump, and clean
On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 09:21:31AM -0400, Bennett Helm wrote:
> On Sep 22, 2005, at 4:08 AM, Martin Vermeer wrote:
>
> >Here is a better patch, taking care of rowpainter too. metrics is
> >still
> >called twice, but now (generally) only for the current paragraph, not
> >the whole screen. Ought t
On Sep 22, 2005, at 4:08 AM, Martin Vermeer wrote:
Here is a better patch, taking care of rowpainter too. metrics is
still
called twice, but now (generally) only for the current paragraph, not
the whole screen. Ought to be faster.
I saw no side effects.
I tried it, and it generally feels qu
Martin Vermeer wrote:
On Thu, 2005-09-22 at 03:26 +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
I also noted that metrics is called twice for every keystroke. Surely one of
those isn't necessary.
Sounds reasonable? Please test. Is it faster, or is it my imagination?
Here is a better patch, taking c
18 matches
Mail list logo
