Hi,
On Fri, 6 Feb 2009, Kjetil Barvik wrote:
> * Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes:
> | Of course, what we _really_ would do is to provide a flag, say,
> | FSTAT_UNRELIABLE and test for _that_ (after defining it in the Makefile
> | for the appropriate platforms).
>
> Or, maybe
>
> #define FSTAT_RELIABLE 1
>
> for Linux only?
No, I think that would be wrong. Especially after Junio's remarks that
fstat() is actually required to behave as you expected it, and only
Windows (surprise, surprise) has problems following the standard.
> Then we can change the if-test inside this patch to the following:
>
> - if (state->refresh_cache && !to_tempfile && !state->base_dir_len) {
> + if (state->refresh_cache && !to_tempfile && !state->base_dir_len &&
> + FSTAT_RELIABLE) {
>
> Then we do not have to have #if-defines inside the source code, only
> in one header file.
In the spirit of consistency, I would not do that.
> But, question: is this patch worth the extra lines added to the source
> code?
You seemed to get a nice speedup on Linux. If Windows cannot follow suit,
too bad. But I do not want to be punished because other people's OS is
not as good as mine, so I _want_ fstat().
And those few lines will not hurt, they'll be readable enough.
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
