| delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
On 6/4/2010 2:20 PM, Christopher Faylor wrote: >> "But providing a variant of stat() along the lines of what you propose >> above is not practical for all the reasons already stated." > This is not something that I said. That was actually Larry Hall. Heh. Who needs him anyway! Just to clarify, this comment was in response to Chris Wingerts' assertion (<http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2010-06/msg00033.html>) that it would be worthwhile to provide some kind of switch to selectively disable the expensive parts of stat(). And my point was that this had already been discounted as a transparent way of addressing the performance problem because it would still be up to the user or application to determine when to make this trade-off (<http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2010-05/msg00751.html>). This is the same conclusion Chris Wingert has now come to as well and stated in <http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2010-06/msg00121.html>: All that being said, I think the best solution is not to optimize the dll stat(), but to do it at the executable level. I see that Cygwin already has some level of patches at this level, it shouldn't be too difficult to support. So we're all back on the same page now. :-) -- Larry Hall http://www.rfk.com RFK Partners, Inc. (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office 216 Dalton Rd. (508) 893-9889 - FAX Holliston, MA 01746 _____________________________________________________________________ A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email? -- 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
| webmaster | delorie software privacy |
| Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |