From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Apr 4 16:19:55 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id QAA26024 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 4 Apr 1995 16:19:55 -0700 Received: from trout.sri.MT.net (trout.sri.MT.net [204.182.243.12]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id QAA26018 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 1995 16:19:50 -0700 Received: (from nate@localhost) by trout.sri.MT.net (8.6.9/8.6.9) id RAA07968; Tue, 4 Apr 1995 17:23:08 -0600 Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 17:23:08 -0600 From: Nate Williams Message-Id: <199504042323.RAA07968@trout.sri.MT.net> In-Reply-To: Poul-Henning Kamp "Re: new install(1) utility" (Apr 4, 4:11pm) X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92) To: Poul-Henning Kamp Subject: Re: new install(1) utility Cc: rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com, terry@cs.weber.edu, kargl@troutmask.apl.washington.edu, freebsd-hackers@freefall.cdrom.com Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > 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