> Either way, I think that correcting this false > optimization is the Rigth Thing to do and that this is a reasonable > implementation.
I decided that I wanted to see if there really was a measurable speedup, so I ran some trivial non-scientific tests. I compiled the Hurd four times (each time just after a fresh boot) and these are the results. If they can be trusted, the new implementation shaves off a few seconds. Old implementation real 38m11.190s user 0m0.010s sys 0m0.000s real 37m52.320s user 0m0.000s sys 0m0.000s New implementation real 37m45.180s user 0m0.010s sys 0m0.000s real 37m35.680s user 0m0.000s sys 0m0.000s _______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
