From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Mar 27 16:27: 4 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A01037B718 for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 16:27:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bright@fw.wintelcom.net) Received: (from bright@localhost) by fw.wintelcom.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) id f2S0R2P18559; Tue, 27 Mar 2001 16:27:02 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 16:27:01 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Gersh Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: crash dump speed up patch. Message-ID: <20010327162701.L9431@fw.wintelcom.net> References: <20010327135341.I9431@fw.wintelcom.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from gersh@sonn.com on Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 02:20:02PM -0800 X-all-your-base: are belong to us. Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * Gersh [010327 14:14] wrote: > > > On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > > it could be replaced with: > > > > if (count % 10) > > printf("%d ", count); > > > that acutally gives alot more output, The basic idea was > to only print out when it got to certian increments 10, 20 > Mainly becasue of the problem with serial connections :/ > > It looks and feels a bit slower to the human eye but it does > benchmark alot faster. That was a typo, it should have been: if (count % 10 == 0) sorry. :) -- -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology," start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message