Re: coreutils-6.2: various runtime problems on Darwin-8.7.0 HFS+ (including attachment this time)

[Jim Meyering]

Bruno Haible <address@hidden> wrote:
> Jim Meyering wrote:
>> I'll use 180.
>> The lower we go, the more of a performance penalty
>> we impose for directories with very many entries.
>
> I tried the value 180. It worked fine in some cases, but still failed in
> others:
...
> Thus, instead of testing whether the number of directory entries since the
> last rewind() exceeds a fixed number, a better test is probably whether
>
>     (total length of file names since last rewind()
>      + 10 * number of directory entries since last rewind())
>     > a fixed number such as 3000

Thanks for the quick test and analysis!
Considering all of that, I may just keep the code simple
and make rm always do an extra rewind on Darwin.