Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| [4 earlier articles] |
| Re: Looking for a fast C++ parser firefly@diku.dk (Peter \Firefly\Lund) (2005-08-13) |
| Re: Looking for a fast C++ parser snicol@apk.net (Scott Nicol) (2005-08-16) |
| Re: Looking for a fast C++ parser Martin.Ward@durham.ac.uk (Martin Ward) (2005-08-16) |
| Re: Looking for a fast C++ parser firefly@diku.dk (Peter \Firefly\Lund) (2005-08-16) |
| Re: Looking for a fast C++ parser firefly@diku.dk (Peter \Firefly\Lund) (2005-08-16) |
| Re: Looking for a fast C++ parser snicol@apk.net (Scott Nicol) (2005-08-16) |
| Re: Looking for a fast C++ parser firefly@diku.dk (Peter \Firefly\Lund) (2005-08-16) |
| From: | "Peter \"Firefly\" Lund" <firefly@diku.dk> |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| Date: | 16 Aug 2005 11:16:51 -0400 |
| Organization: | Compilers Central |
| References: | 05-06-133 05-08-030 05-08-035 05-08-051 <42FD7FC1.4040704@apk.net> <Pine.LNX.4.61.0508131127530.11001@tyr.diku.dk> <42FDF529.609@apk.net> |
| Keywords: | tools, C++ |
| Posted-Date: | 16 Aug 2005 11:16:51 EDT |
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005, Scott Nicol wrote:
> Interesting, I've never noticed sluggish response with vim, and most of my
> computers can be described as anything but quick. I tried a simple test on a
> 733MHz Celeron with 512MB RAM running an couple-year-old version of Linux. I
Which actually is a pretty fast screaming monster machine ;)
A 75MHz 486 (without X) is definitely not fast enough (it's one of my
old laptops).
> Doing this 4 times a second (i.e. 2 remove/add cycles) shows a load of around
> 5% (using top). Given that there is some overhead just from X-windows
So one remove/add cycle takes 2.5%, i.e. 1/40s = 25ms. I guess the delay
would be visible to me on a 133 MHz machine.
-Peter
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.