> > > What is the role of xmbsrtowcs? Why doesn't mbsrtowcs convert 0x5c to
> > U<0x5c>?
> >
> >
> > I see. I assume that it's a bug in mbsrtowcs. (If you check, xmbsrtowcs
> > isn't used anywhere, so the question is moot.)
>
> Ok. But I suppose that the role of xdupmbsrtowcs is to avoid the
> > What is the role of xmbsrtowcs? Why doesn't mbsrtowcs convert 0x5c to
> U<0x5c>?
>
>
> I see. I assume that it's a bug in mbsrtowcs. (If you check, xmbsrtowcs
> isn't used anywhere, so the question is moot.)
Ok. But I suppose that the role of xdupmbsrtowcs is to avoid the same
bug, am I r
Nicolas wrote:
I don't really understand this question.
What is the role of xmbsrtowcs? Why doesn't mbsrtowcs convert 0x5c to U<0x5c>?
I see. I assume that it's a bug in mbsrtowcs. (If you check, xmbsrtowcs
isn't used anywhere, so the question is moot.)
Chet
--
``The lyf so short, the c
Nicolas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What is the role of xmbsrtowcs? Why doesn't mbsrtowcs convert 0x5c to U<0x5c>?
SHIFT-JIS defines 0x5c to be the Yen sign .
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
PGP key f
Thanks for your answer.
> > Nevertheless, I don't really understand the purpose of this function.
> > Is it supposed to bypass a bug in mbsrtowcs (defined in wchar.h), as
> > said in the following commentaries?
> > /* xmbsrtowcs.c -- replacement function for mbsrtowcs */
> > /* On some locale
Nicolas wrote:
Jan Schampera wrote:
Yea, I didn't look close enough. My fault.
Ok, I found the problem: xdupmbstowcs (in file /lib/glob/xmbsrtowcs.c)
is painfully slow, because of very frequent calls to realloc. I think
this could be optimized.
You're probably right, and I see at least one w
Jan Schampera wrote:
> Yea, I didn't look close enough. My fault.
Ok, I found the problem: xdupmbstowcs (in file /lib/glob/xmbsrtowcs.c)
is painfully slow, because of very frequent calls to realloc. I think
this could be optimized.
Nevertheless, I don't really understand the purpose of this funct
Nicolas Bonifas wrote:
> Thanks for your answer.
>
>> I assume you know that the speed issues most likely come from the
>> operating system's supporting functions like the fork() and exec*()
>> family members?
>
> How does it explain the speed difference between "echo `dircolors`"
> and "dircol
"Nicolas Bonifas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Bash starts slowly on my 600 Mhz computer (.62 seconds). I wanted to
> understand why, and here is what I found:
>
> $ time eval `dircolors`
This has nothing to do with eval, the command is underquoted. You are
measuring the time it takes to apply
Thanks for your answer.
> I assume you know that the speed issues most likely come from the
> operating system's supporting functions like the fork() and exec*()
> family members?
How does it explain the speed difference between "echo `dircolors`"
and "dircolors" ?
Nicolas Bonifas wrote:
>> > I don't know much about bash internals, but there is probably room for
>> > a huge performance improvement in speeding up the eval builtin.
>> > What do you think about it? Would it be a difficult task?
>>
>> It is more likely to be the command substitution that i
> > I don't know much about bash internals, but there is probably room for
> > a huge performance improvement in speeding up the eval builtin.
> > What do you think about it? Would it be a difficult task?
>
> It is more likely to be the command substitution that is slow.
You're right:
$ tim
On 2008-03-02, Nicolas Bonifas wrote:
> Hi,
> Bash starts slowly on my 600 Mhz computer (.62 seconds). I wanted to
> understand why, and here is what I found:
>
> $ time eval `dircolors`
>
> real0m0.325s
> user0m0.316s
> sys 0m0.004s
>
> I wanted to know what is so slow in the previous
Hi,
Bash starts slowly on my 600 Mhz computer (.62 seconds). I wanted to
understand why, and here is what I found:
$ time eval `dircolors`
real0m0.325s
user0m0.316s
sys 0m0.004s
I wanted to know what is so slow in the previous command, so here is
another test:
$ time (dircolors > di
14 matches
Mail list logo
