Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 22:23:01 -0700 (PDT) From: julian@tfs.com (Julian Elischer) To: phk@ref.tfs.com (Poul-Henning Kamp) Cc: nate@sneezy.sri.com, rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com, julian@tfs.com, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: new install(1) utility Message-ID: <m0rwNYT-0003vvC@TFS.COM> In-Reply-To: <199504050432.VAA06504@ref.tfs.com> from "Poul-Henning Kamp" at Apr 4, 95 09:32:37 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > > Using cksum is *not* the way to go, we already have Pouls benchmarks > > > of cmp vs cksum on this, and cksum is not fail safe, it is possible > > > for 2 files to have the same checksum but contain different data, > > > very unlikely, but possible. > > > > I would have to see it to believe it. And, I don't remember any of > > Poul's benchmarks that you are speaking of just that he said his > > memmap/memcmp stuff for CTM was faster than cksums. > > > We have "install" in the vm-cache already, so exec'ing "cmp" will > always take longer, plus the logic in the shell to look at the exit- > code, plus people will invariably get it wrong in the Makefiles. better yet to have make decide to not run it at ALL.. :) > > QED: install is the place to do it, mmap+memcmp the way to do it. I think there is a need for both. julian > > -- > Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@login.dknet.dk> -- TRW Financial Systems, Inc. > 'All relevant people are pertinent' && 'All rude people are impertinent' > => 'no rude people are relevant' >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?m0rwNYT-0003vvC>