[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Nmh-workers] m_getfld

From: David Levine
Subject: Re: [Nmh-workers] m_getfld
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2012 14:01:11 -0600

Paul V. wrote:

> i would have rewritten m_getfld.c a year ago if i hadn't thought that
> its API layering was one of its big problems and that a correctness
> preserving transformation of code that implements a bad idea is not the
> way to improve the overall system. maybe i was wrong.

I don't think so.  There are 78 or so call sites and it's
used for different purposes.  I think that getting to a
decent API is much more important and a better investment.

> let me ask: if i fix m_getfld.c by replacement, including major changes
> at every call site, would that patch get any daylight? i'm not unwilling
> to work on it, i'm just unwilling to let the work languish because it's
> too "edgy" for a conservative code base.

I'm confident that the test suite ("make check") can verify
correctness.  It doesn't check performance, but I expect
that enough of us have big folders we can run inc, pick,
etc., on.  And a variety of perf tests would be welcome.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]