From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Ludlam Subject: Re: Using CEDET modules from Emacs core Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 17:51:34 -0500 Message-ID: <5fbb38e9-9f95-823c-7042-afc9cfa1d863@siege-engine.com> References: <87k29d7zvw.fsf@engster.org> <87fuk08i01.fsf@engster.org> <87d1f36xnc.fsf@engster.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Emacs-devel" To: Dmitry Gutov , Stefan Monnier , emacs-devel@gnu.org Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org List-Id: emacs-orgmode.gnu.org On 02/12/2017 11:00 AM, Dmitry Gutov wrote: > On 12.02.2017 05:33, Stefan Monnier wrote: > I don't have anything against supporting Semantic more widely, but we > should understand that it isn't something all users want. And the > "Semantic is too slow for C++" complaint (e.g. compared to Clang-based > background process solutions) is unlikely to go away. There are a lot of ways to use semantic which changes its performance profile. It depends on what features you want. Most configuration help assumes you want all the most time consuming features, but there are also simple helpful features that are supported with minimal parsing support. To boot, C++ is also the oldest parser in the suite and it wasn't updated to the newer/faster parser generator. While I haven't had time to work on CEDET lately, I'd be happy to discuss specific performance issues and share ideas on how to improve them, presumably after the most recent merge is completed. Eric