On 2010-08-23 13:35, Christian Lohmaier wrote: > [...] Using mmap [on Mac/PPC] to load all the include files bypasses > the filesystem cache [...]
Ouch. That surprises me. Thanks for telling! The reason I chose mmap() instead of read() was mainly that the C "parser" (that basically knows about C/C++ comments and string literals) was easier to write under the assumption that it has access to the whole file as a string and I figured that it would be better to mmap() than to read the whole file into memory (or at least not worse). I didn't perform any benchmarks to back up that choice, though. Now I've done some tests, and it seems that on my 64-bit Linux system, mmap() is slightly faster for (very) large files, but for smaller files, I can't measure any real difference consistently. I assume that reading the whole file into memory instead of using mmap() isn't considerably slower on other systems too, so I'll make ccache do that. > * is there any reason why you don't use calloc but use malloc + memset? I guess you mean in manifest.c? No, no special reason. Changed. Thanks! > * when using ccache 2.4, the patch to fix --ccache-skip was needed, at > first glance that code did not change, so my guess is that it is still > needed? > http://www.mail-archive.com/ccache@lists.samba.org/msg00197.html > (talking about this one) That's funny, I just noticed and fixed that bug three days ago! I didn't know of the patch. I haven't scanned old mailing list posts for patches; maybe I should. > Also I noticed that ccache now reject everything remotely looking like > a filelist, this is a little unfortunate since OOo uses -install_name > @_(50 underscores)identifier/libraryname to later rewrite it to the > target location and thus those compiles won't be cached - hashing > install_name and its value should be OK.... I don't quite follow you. What do you mean by "reject"? -- Joel _______________________________________________ ccache mailing list ccache@lists.samba.org https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/ccache
