On Sun, Apr 27, 2008 at 07:41:44PM -0700, Jason Dagit wrote: > On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 4:22 AM, David Roundy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Gwern's idea of making is_funky faster is always good (since it speeds > > up many darcs commands, if only a little), but I don't think it touches > > the real problem, which is that we shouldn't be opening these files at > > all. > > Right, and actually I've been working with Gwern over IRC about optimizing > whatsnew and specifically the binary detection. He's noticed that co_slurpy > is strict in the IO which is interesting. I think he's looking at getting > mmap working for address spaces that are greater than 32bits. If you look > in fpstring.c you'll see that my_mmap takes an int where it should work with > size_t, but I don't think that's the only problem. I think some of the FFI > stuff needs changing too. By the way, what does the "co" in co_slurpy mean?
The "co" in co_slurpy means that it's slurping "along with" another slurpy, rather than grabbing everything that is available. This is an optimization for the case where you have many unrecorded files. A friend used to have whatsnew take several minutes to run when he had no changes, simple because darcs had to sort through all the directory listings in his working directory (since it was using slurp). I'm not sure what you mean by co_slurpy being strinct. It looks to me like it's got adequate unsafeInterleaveIO to make it lazy. -- David Roundy Department of Physics Oregon State University _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
