On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 11:45 PM, Stefan Beller wrote:
>>> I didn't mean to change this bit, it should remain "if
>>> (!num_threads)". I was in the middle of monkeypatching and didn't
>>> review the diff carefully enough. But it any
On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 11:45 PM, Stefan Beller wrote:
>> I didn't mean to change this bit, it should remain "if
>> (!num_threads)". I was in the middle of monkeypatching and didn't
>> review the diff carefully enough. But it any case, without this change
>> the rest of this diff is your proposed (
> I didn't mean to change this bit, it should remain "if
> (!num_threads)". I was in the middle of monkeypatching and didn't
> review the diff carefully enough. But it any case, without this change
> the rest of this diff is your proposed (but segfaulting) change as I
> understand it.
Sorry for th
On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 11:36 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 11:20 PM, Stefan Beller wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
>> wrote:
>>
>>> + if (num_threads == 1)
>>> + num_threads = 0;
>>
>> I would think that it is e
On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 11:20 PM, Stefan Beller wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
> wrote:
>
>> + if (num_threads == 1)
>> + num_threads = 0;
>
> I would think that it is easier to maintain the code when keep the 1
> hard coded, and apply the fol
On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
wrote:
> + if (num_threads == 1)
> + num_threads = 0;
I would think that it is easier to maintain the code when keep the 1
hard coded, and apply the following diff instead. If we encounter
a 0 later on, it is not clear
Skip the administrative overhead of using pthreads when only using one
thread. Instead take the non-threaded path which would be taken under
NO_PTHREADS.
The threading support was initially added in commit
5b594f457a ("Threaded grep", 2010-01-25) with a hardcoded compile-time
number of 8 threads.
7 matches
Mail list logo