Sander Temme wrote:
Does anyone have a perl script etc. to automatically convert all leading tabs
to
n blanks?
Doesn't indent do the trick, with the .indent.pro from somewhere in the
httpd-2.0 tree?
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> Most Unices have a command called "expand" that does just that.
De-tab
Does anyone have a perl script etc. to automatically convert all
leading tabs to n blanks? I was thinking of manually de-tabifying in
the vicinity of this fix, but it would be better to do the whole thing
if I can get my hands on such a tool.
Most Unices have a command called "expand" that does
> Does anyone have a perl script etc. to automatically convert all leading tabs
> to
> n blanks? I was thinking of manually de-tabifying in the vicinity of this
> fix,
> but it would be better to do the whole thing if I can get my hands on such a
> tool.
Doesn't indent do the trick, with the .i
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- mod_specweb99.c 31 Oct 2002 19:39:04 - 1.16
+++ mod_specweb99.c 14 Jan 2003 15:02:00 - 1.17
@@ -765,8 +765,9 @@
line = apr_psprintf(r->pool, "%10d\n", 0);
- if (apr_file_write_full(f, line, strlen(line), NULL) != APR_SUCCESS) {
- ap_log
> Brian Pane wrote:
>
> > Do you have any profile data that shows where the bottlenecks are?
>
> No, sorry. At the moment I'm focusing on mod_specweb99.
>
> > From recent tests with other workloads, I anticipate that the most
> > expensive operations are likely to be: reading the HTTP headers,
Brian Pane wrote:
> Do you have any profile data that shows where the bottlenecks are?
No, sorry. At the moment I'm focusing on mod_specweb99.
> From recent tests with other workloads, I anticipate that the most
> expensive operations are likely to be: reading the HTTP headers,
> directory_wal
Greg Ames wrote:
But I can mention that my very unofficial mini-SPECweb99 runs with the client
and server both on my ThinkPad with 100% "standard dynamic GETs"* show that
prefork is the fastest, worker is about 1% slower, and leader is about another
1.5% slower. This is a noticeable improvement fr
Brian Pane wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >gregames2002/06/03 11:05:50
> >
> > Modified:specweb99/specweb99-2.0 mod_specweb99.c
> >
>
> BTW, does anyone have SPECweb results for 2.0 that they're
> able to discuss?
Not that can be published according to the SPEC rules, or are w
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
gregames2002/06/03 11:05:50
Modified:specweb99/specweb99-2.0 mod_specweb99.c
BTW, does anyone have SPECweb results for 2.0 that they're
able to discuss?
Thanks,
--Brian
