On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Ville M. Vainio<[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 8:43 PM, Ville M. Vainio<[email protected]> wrote: > >>> @auto is not supported yet either, but it's probably trivial to add. >> >> Just pushed support for @auto, and fixed the data lossage scenario I >> warned about. >> >> If you have a large (disposable) tree with @auto nodes, try benchmarking it. > > > The good news for @auto seems to be that the load time doesn't seem to > skyrocket when nodes are added . On my non-scientific analysis, I had > a tree of 140 .cpp files. > > On old code, this took 43 secs to open. Yes, that's too much to way to > wait. On the new code (with the files cached), it took 15secs.
Cool. mine went from 20s to 10s, an empty Leo takes about 5s. (was briefly puzzled by no change the first time, when the cache didn't yet exist) Very nice, it will be my default branch until further notice. Are the contents of ~/.leo/db/start.leo_<hash> pickled positions? Are @edit nodes also cached? Thanks, Kent > > -- > Ville M. Vainio > http://tinyurl.com/vainio > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
