Hi Junio,
On Wed, 16 Dec 2015, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@xxxxxx> writes:
>
> > int mingw_fflush(FILE *stream);
> > #define fflush mingw_fflush
> >
> > +static inline ssize_t mingw_write(int fd, const void *buf, size_t len)
> > +{
> > + ssize_t result = write(fd, buf, len);
> > +
> > + if (result < 0 && errno == EINVAL && buf) {
> > + /* check if fd is a pipe */
> > + HANDLE h = (HANDLE) _get_osfhandle(fd);
> > + if (GetFileType(h) == FILE_TYPE_PIPE)
> > + errno = EPIPE;
> > + else
> > + errno = EINVAL;
> > + }
> > +
> > + return result;
> > +}
> > +
> > +#define write mingw_write
> > +
>
> It strikes me a bit strange to see this inlined compared to what
> appears in the context. Shouldn't the implementation be done in
> compat/mingw.c like all others?
My intuition (which I honestly did not verify using performance tests) was
that write() is called *much* more often than, say, open(), and therefore
I wanted to interfere as little as possible with the performance penalty.
Hence the choice of an inlined function as opposed to a non-optimizable
increment of the call chain.
If it bothers you a lot I will set aside time to perform performance
tests.
Ciao,
Dscho
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html