[notmuch] [PATCH] notmuch-new: Eliminate tallocs whilst construct filenames.

2009-11-27 Thread Jeffrey Ollie
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 11:41 PM, Carl Worth wrote: > > But yes, we need a test suite. I have zero experience, but Check[1] looks interesting. > Oh, and we'll also need to deal with remaining glib usage inside of > notmuch, (and inside of GMime as well), before we can do good testing > for

[notmuch] [PATCH] notmuch-new: Eliminate tallocs whilst construct filenames.

2009-11-27 Thread Carl Worth
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:17:02 +, Chris Wilson wrote: > > I *know* I composed a reply to this message earlier, but apparently > > you're right that it never went out. (*sigh*---if only I had a reliable > > mail client[*]). > > I hear there's one called sup... ;-) Heh. But seriously, I hit a

[notmuch] [PATCH] notmuch-new: Eliminate tallocs whilst construct filenames.

2009-11-27 Thread Chris Wilson
Excerpts from Carl Worth's message of Fri Nov 27 13:23:06 + 2009: > On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 00:57:10 +, Chris Wilson chris-wilson.co.uk> wrote: > > The majority of filenames will fit within PATH_MAX [4096] (because > > that's a hard limit imposed by the filesystems) so we can avoid an > >

Re: [notmuch] [PATCH] notmuch-new: Eliminate tallocs whilst construct filenames.

2009-11-27 Thread Carl Worth
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 00:57:10 +, Chris Wilson ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk wrote: The majority of filenames will fit within PATH_MAX [4096] (because that's a hard limit imposed by the filesystems) so we can avoid an allocation per lookup and thereby eliminate a large proportion of the overhead

Re: [notmuch] [PATCH] notmuch-new: Eliminate tallocs whilst construct filenames.

2009-11-27 Thread Carl Worth
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:17:02 +, Chris Wilson ch...@chris-wilson.co.uk wrote: I *know* I composed a reply to this message earlier, but apparently you're right that it never went out. (*sigh*---if only I had a reliable mail client[*]). I hear there's one called sup... ;-) Heh. But

[notmuch] [PATCH] notmuch-new: Eliminate tallocs whilst construct filenames.

2009-11-22 Thread Chris Wilson
The majority of filenames will fit within PATH_MAX [4096] (because that's a hard limit imposed by the filesystems) so we can avoid an allocation per lookup and thereby eliminate a large proportion of the overhead of scanning a maildir. Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson --- notmuch-new.c | 75