On Mon, 7 Nov 2022 at 17:00, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On Thu, 6 Oct 2022 at 20:03, Charles-Francois Natali via Libstdc++
> wrote:
> >
> > `basic_filebuf::xsputn` would bypass the buffer when passed a chunk of
> > size 1024 and above, seemingly as an optimisation.
> >
> > This can have a signific
On Thu, 6 Oct 2022 at 20:03, Charles-Francois Natali via Libstdc++
wrote:
>
> `basic_filebuf::xsputn` would bypass the buffer when passed a chunk of
> size 1024 and above, seemingly as an optimisation.
>
> This can have a significant performance impact if the overhead of a
> `write` syscall is non
On Thu, Oct 6, 2022, 20:03 Charles-Francois Natali
wrote:
> `basic_filebuf::xsputn` would bypass the buffer when passed a chunk of
> size 1024 and above, seemingly as an optimisation.
>
> This can have a significant performance impact if the overhead of a
> `write` syscall is non-negligible, e.g.
`basic_filebuf::xsputn` would bypass the buffer when passed a chunk of
size 1024 and above, seemingly as an optimisation.
This can have a significant performance impact if the overhead of a
`write` syscall is non-negligible, e.g. on a slow disk, on network
filesystems, or simply during IO contenti
