Sender: vheyndri AT rug DOT ac DOT be
Message-Id: <35446E35.5D55@rug.ac.be>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1998 13:38:29 +0200
From: Vik Heyndrickx <Vik DOT Heyndrickx AT rug DOT ac DOT be>
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: Andris Pavenis <pavenis AT lanet DOT lv>
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Patch to add target specific cleanup for gcc.c
References: <199804270915 DOT LAA57422 AT ieva06 DOT lanet DOT lv> <199804271144 DOT NAA33208 AT ieva06 DOT lanet DOT lv>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

Andris Pavenis wrote:
> I think that creating one extra file can still be in average faster than opening EVERY
> temporary files once more. Of course this is safer than approach I used,
> but is it worth the overhead we'll have

Have you ever measured the overhead emposed by a single file open?
I've done a bit of testing and I can create and delete more than 1000
files per second on a moderately fast and optimized machine. IMO, It is
really not a big issue.

-- 
 \ Vik /-_-_-_-_-_-_/
  \___/ Heyndrickx /
   \ /-_-_-_-_-_-_/  Knight in the Order of the Unsigned Types