From:	pavenis AT lanet DOT lv
To:	sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann), djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Mon, 20 Aug 2001 17:31:02 +0300
MIME-Version:	1.0
Subject:	Re: Selector exhaustion code update
Message-ID:	<3B814956.2467.FAD3A8@localhost>
In-reply-to:	<10108201420.AA17274@clio.rice.edu>
References:	<3B814236 DOT 25030 DOT DEFA70 AT localhost> from "pavenis AT lanet DOT lv" at Aug 20, 2001 05:00:38 PM
X-mailer:	Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On 20 Aug 2001, at 9:20, Charles Sandmann wrote:

> > We can is we duplicate call to direct_exec_tail_1() inside that block.
> > The advatage is that we can set different initial values for 
> > default_depth on Win9X (where scan is rather fast) and for 
> > WinNT,2k,... where it is expected to be much slower.
> 
> I would rather just increase the map size for all - after all we are
> talking about 50 or 100 bytes on the stack.  Just because the map
> is allocated doesn't mean we have to use it for NT.
> 
> > So the initial value should perhaps be smaller for WinNT. It can safely 
> > be larger for Win9X.
> 
> Maybe.  If the hybrid search works, it won't hurt NT too much.
> One tuning factor is bad.  Two are worse :-)

We still have only one parameter to tune. Only initial values for
Win9X and for WinNT could be different.

Andris

- Raw text -