[Users] Couple of small patches

[wwp]

Hello Olivier,


On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 17:02:31 +0100 Olivier Brunel <jjk at jjacky.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 16:41:48 +0100
> wwp <subscript at free.fr> wrote:
> 
> > Hello Olivier,
> > 
> > 
> > On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 16:33:21 +0100 Olivier Brunel <jjk at jjacky.com>
> > wrote:
> >   
> > > On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 09:00:04 +0100
> > > Colin Leroy-Mira <colin at colino.net> wrote:
> > >     
> > > > On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 17:12:18 +0100, Olivier Brunel
> > > > <jjk at jjacky.com> wrote:
> > > >       
> > > > >  		procmsg_msginfo_free(&msg);
> > > > >  
> > > > > +		gtk_main_iteration_do (FALSE);
> > > > >  		if (progress_cb != NULL        
> > > > 
> > > > Doesn't performing a gtk iteration each message drop search
> > > > performance badly ?      
> > > 
> > > Well, I didn't do extensive testing, but I couldn't really notice
> > > any diferences when I tried things. Also, I (obviously) have this
> > > applied here, and - though I'm not doing comparison - my searches
> > > don't seem slow(er) to me. Of course, it might also depends on
> > > other factors, one's setup, etc. YMMV.
> > > 
> > > (I'd say most of the times GTK should just check that there are no
> > > pending events and return immediately anyways.)
> > > 
> > > So I would say 'no' to the "hurt badly" idea; And though I'm sure it
> > > does affect it somewhat, for me it doesn't seem noticeable.    
> > 
> > I was already doubtful but there you're not really convincing me this
> > patch could make things better ;-).  
> 
> Well, obviously this wasn't intended to make things better wrt speed.
> And since more code is added, as little as it may be, one could argue
> it has to have an impact, and that can only go one way.
> 
> What I'm saying is that, AFAICS, said impact seem minimal (not
> noticeable in fact) whilst the impact for what the patch is intended,
> i.e. making the UI more responsive, is clearly there.
> At least for me, when running long/slow searches, I can cancel them
> quite easily/rapidly with this patch. Without, it's quite another
> story...

Thanks .Making the UI more responsive was my concern in that case, I'll
see if I observe some progress there w/ the patch applied.


Regards,

-- 
wwp
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.claws-mail.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20181220/b45d4989/attachment.sig>