Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jim Meyering wrote: >> I'll use 180. >> The lower we go, the more of a performance penalty >> we impose for directories with very many entries. > > I tried the value 180. It worked fine in some cases, but still failed in > others: ... > Thus, instead of testing whether the number of directory entries since the > last rewind() exceeds a fixed number, a better test is probably whether > > (total length of file names since last rewind() > + 10 * number of directory entries since last rewind()) > > a fixed number such as 3000
Thanks for the quick test and analysis! Considering all of that, I may just keep the code simple and make rm always do an extra rewind on Darwin.
