X-Recipient: archive-cygwin@delorie.com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,SPF_NEUTRAL,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Message-ID: <4FD1F709.4050107@cornell.edu>
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 08:58:49 -0400
From: Ken Brown <kbrown@cornell.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: Performance problems with emacs-X11 in current cygwin
References: <4FC7D9E6.5050609@alice.it> <4FCA1FF0.8090703@alice.it> <4FCA2CA9.7080704@cornell.edu> <4FCA634D.1080206@cornell.edu> <4FCB2991.3010701@users.sourceforge.net> <4FCB5438.7080903@cornell.edu> <4FCB9872.5010506@cornell.edu> <loom.20120606T123651-460@post.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <loom.20120606T123651-460@post.gmane.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-PMX-CORNELL-SPAM-CHECKED: Pawpaw
X-Original-Sender: kbrown@cornell.edu - Fri Jun  8 08:58:56 2012
X-PMX-CORNELL-REASON: CU_White_List_Override
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe@cygwin.com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help@cygwin.com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com

On 6/6/2012 7:04 AM, Stephen L wrote:
> Ken Brown<kbrown<at>  cornell.edu>  writes:
>> Never mind.  I'm not up to this task.  But if you're willing to
>> facilitate the bisection by doing the builds, I'll be glad to test them
>> on my XP system, at least as far as emacs is concerned.  And I'm sure
>> there are gvim users who would do the same.
>
> ok so I've been looking through the glib repo, there's not a huge amount of
> obvious changes, but this one looks interesting:
>
> http://git.gnome.org/browse/glib/commit/?h=glib-2-32&id=b1d447bd664bcbc607811c7920b67856d4f551e6
>
> it will take me a few days to find the time, but I will make an effort to bisect
> this a little further. watch this space

So that you don't go on a wild goose chase, I've been testing released 
version of glib from http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/gnome/sources/glib, and 
I've determined that the problem does not occur with glib-2.30.3 but 
does occur with glib-2.31.0.

As I said earlier, I don't understand very well how git branches work, 
but I *think* this means we have to look in the 2-32 branch, prior to 
the 2.31.0 tag, to find the problematic commit.  I've checked out the 
2-32 branch, and I guess the next step is to find a problem-free 
revision of that branch, and then bisect between it and the 2.31.0 tag. 
  I'm in the process of reading the git documentation to figure out how 
to do that, but I wouldn't object if someone would save me some time by 
giving me the appropriate git commands.

Ken


--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple