On 4/22/24 17:17, enh via Toybox wrote:
> ah, yeah, the _include_ path uses the full buffer and -r uses stdio
> buffering, but "regular" xxd was doing neither. i've sent out the
> trivial patch to switch to stdio.
Ah, performance tweak.
*shrug* Applied...
Rob
On Monday, April 22nd, 2024 at 17:17, enh via Toybox
wrote:
> ah, yeah, the include path uses the full buffer and -r uses stdio
> buffering, but "regular" xxd was doing neither. i've sent out the
> trivial patch to switch to stdio.
Thanks, on my machine it improves the speed by about 10Mb/s
On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 2:23 PM Oliver Webb wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 7:38 PM Oliver Webb via Toybox
> > toybox@lists.landley.net wrote:
>
> > > xxd also runs on average about 5 times slower than vim xxd, this is
> > > because of read reading 16 bytes at a time, also not hard to fix,
> On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 7:38 PM Oliver Webb via Toybox
> toybox@lists.landley.net wrote:
> > xxd also runs on average about 5 times slower than vim xxd, this is
> > because of read reading 16 bytes at a time, also not hard to fix, but
> > very hard to fix cleanly.
>
>
> really? a quick glance
On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 7:38 PM Oliver Webb via Toybox
wrote:
>
> Looking at xxd, I noticed that the -b[inary] flag wasn't there,
> Having some facility to print binary is nice, but since printf
> doesn't have anything in built for it implementing it isn't hard,
> but it looks _ugly_. Which is
