[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 18:45:49 -0600 |
> >Yes, but by "different purposes" I was thinking how scan
> >digs back into the IO buffers. Though maybe that won't
> >be necessary any more.
>
> I had forgotten about that. Okay, looking at that now .... alright,
> that's not as nasty as I thought. All it does is to use the output
> stdio buffer as the input buffer for m_getfld() so we can avoid an extra
> copy. Can we all agree that's not necessary anymore, and the resulting
> performance gain is probably miniscule? If so, I can simply get rid of
> that garbage now.
Fine with me.
Would a perf test be to pack a big folder into an mbox and
then scan that?
David
- Re: [Nmh-workers] m_getfld, (continued)
Re: [Nmh-workers] m_getfld,
David Levine <=
Re: [Nmh-workers] m_getfld, David Levine, 2012/12/09
Re: [Nmh-workers] m_getfld, David Levine, 2012/12/09
Re: [Nmh-workers] m_getfld, David Levine, 2012/12/09
Re: [Nmh-workers] m_getfld, David Levine, 2012/12/10