Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 17:23:08 -0600 From: Nate Williams <nate@trout.sri.MT.net> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@ref.tfs.com> Cc: rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com, terry@cs.weber.edu, kargl@troutmask.apl.washington.edu, freebsd-hackers@freefall.cdrom.com Subject: Re: new install(1) utility Message-ID: <199504042323.RAA07968@trout.sri.MT.net> In-Reply-To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@ref.tfs.com> "Re: new install(1) utility" (Apr 4, 4:11pm)
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Putting it in the install binary allows us to do this more effeciently. > > Yes, we could put it in the .mk files, but install already knows the > > sizes of both the original and the new files, so doing an update is > > obvious if they don't match, and doing cksums on both files would be > > much faster than the 'cmp' IMHO. > > Funny you should mention, I just ran some experiments (for CTM), and the > fastest thing you can do is to mmap both files and memcmp them... I wonder if this is the case for non-x86 machines as well, since I suspect memcpy() uses the fast string routines available on x86 machines. Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199504042323.RAA07968>