Is there a specific need to make this configurable? I don't quite see
that the performance impact would be so dramatic for 512 vs. 1024. But
if you do have data on this, I'd consider it. For now, I've just moved
it down to 512.
Happy hacking!
Christian
On 08/21/2012 04:02 PM, Keith Mendoza wrote:
Maybe this can be made into a configuration item.
Sent from my Android phone
On Aug 20, 2012 11:22 PM, "Christian Grothoff" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Yes, this should be fine.
-Christian
On 08/21/2012 08:07 AM, Martin Velek wrote:
Hello,
is it possible to decrease the XBUF_SIZE (line #34,
postprocessor.c)
from 1024 to e.g. 512? Even if this could bring some performance
issues. On embedded system with RTOS the stack size is a limiting
factor and with the default value, the post_process_urlencoded
function takes 1120 of stack (generated by gcc -fstack-usage).
Regards
Martin Velek
