[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Optimal buffer size for copy
From: |
neillm |
Subject: |
Re: Optimal buffer size for copy |
Date: |
Thu, 6 Nov 2003 16:08:32 -0600 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.4i |
Hello Paul,
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 12:03:46PM -0800, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Suppose we just split out buffer_lcm into a separate module and use
> that?
Thanks again for the feedback. I've taken a look at this and the
buffer_lcm method is concise and more robust than the proposed ones.
So I'm certainly in favor of doing this, but there is one remaining
issue I'd like some feedback on: would it be more appropriate to add
the single method to an existing lib file (and which) as opposed to
adding a new file? As seen in my last mailing, adding new files
complicates the proposed patch quite a bit.
Best regards,
-Neill.
- Optimal buffer size for copy, neillm, 2003/11/04
- Re: Optimal buffer size for copy, Paul Eggert, 2003/11/04
- Re: Optimal buffer size for copy, neillm, 2003/11/06
- Re: Optimal buffer size for copy, Paul Eggert, 2003/11/05
- Re: Optimal buffer size for copy, neillm, 2003/11/06
- Re: Optimal buffer size for copy, Paul Eggert, 2003/11/06
- Re: Optimal buffer size for copy,
neillm <=
- Re: Optimal buffer size for copy, Paul Eggert, 2003/11/06
- Re: Optimal buffer size for copy, neillm, 2003/11/07
- Re: Optimal buffer size for copy, neillm, 2003/11/25