On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 01:43:00AM -0600, Tim Peters wrote: > I'm optimistic, because the new test compares a quantity already being > tested by the macro, a second time against 0, and it's hard to get > cheaper than that. However, the new branch isn't predictable, so who > knows? When compiling with gcc at least you could give the compiler a hint, eg http://kerneltrap.org/node/4705 > For example, in a release build on WinXP, VM size is about 48MB at the > "full" prompt, and drops to 3MB at the "empty" prompt. In the trunk > (without this patch), VM size falls relatively little from what it is > at the "full" prompt Excellent work! -- Nick Craig-Wood <nick at craig-wood.com> -- http://www.craig-wood.com/nick
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4