| 1 |
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:38:52 +0530 |
| 2 |
"Arun Raghavan" <arunisgod@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 7:30 PM, Ciaran McCreesh |
| 4 |
> <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
> [...] |
| 6 |
> > - it doubles the number of file reads necessary during resolution. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> The first read will cause the file to be cached for subsequent reads |
| 9 |
> anyway, so the performance hit boils down to an additional read() call |
| 10 |
> (which will probably be buffered by your file I/O library anyway, so |
| 11 |
> it's unlikely to even result in a context switch). And even without, |
| 12 |
> it is well worth the lack of fugliness in the ebuild name. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
No, it results in a new open() on a file that's elsewhere on disk, which |
| 15 |
results in two new seeks. You get about fifty seeks per second. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> > - it heavily restricts future syntax and meaning of EAPIs |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Not by much. It's just a header. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
<!-- EAPI="3" --> |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives