Patrik Stridvall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Alexandre, can you describe what you dislike so much about _my_ solution?
> Your argument that the Wine binary is large enough as it is,
> is not very persuasive even though, I do admit you have a point.
> I think having a cleaner, more maintainable and faster solution
> is worth the somewhat larger binaries.
It is only faster if you assume infinite RAM and cache, which few of
us have on our machines... in real life doubling the size of the code
has a large performance impact. And I also strongly disagree with the
"more maintainable" part; compile-time options are a pain to maintain
and debug (not to mention that compilation times are doubled of course).
> Note that it doesn't
> hurt embedded system, my solution allows an ASCII only Wine.
Embedded systems may want Unicode too (CE is mostly Unicode AFAIK).
> It is not the double conversion that seems wasteful it the extra
> memory allocations.
There is nothing that says we have to allocate memory on every
conversion. There are a lot of possible optimizations, like the
per-thread Unicode string buffer that ntdll uses.
--
Alexandre Julliard
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
