http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3776
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #2447 is|0 |1
obsolete|
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3776
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-10-13 23:36 ---
to be explicit: +1 from me. I've applied the 3.1.0 version as r54771.
pity about the int array, but c'est la vie. I think the length
limit will take care of
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3776
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-10-13 11:30 ---
I like that. I did ask for someone with more perl chops to look at the code :-)
I have to test it for myself before I vote on it, though, to be responsible.
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3776
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-10-13 14:25 ---
hash keys are always converted to strings anyway
I expected that my Lisp instincts for optimization would not work here :-)
Well, does all the memory allocated
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3776
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-10-13 15:37 ---
yep, the memory is generally freed once processing finishes -- freed to the perl
allocator. However, that generally does not get returned to the OS; it remains
http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3776
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-10-13 15:38 ---
(ps: integers *are* more efficient if you can use arrays with a sane length. I
don't know if this code is amenable to that though.)
--- You are receiving
