On (19/05/10 12:58), Elmo Todurov wrote: > Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 12:58:16 +0300 > From: Elmo Todurov <todu...@gmail.com> > To: dev mail list <dev@suckless.org> > Subject: Re: [dev] dmenu_path rewrite in C > User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) > Gecko/20100330 Shredder/3.0.4 > List-Id: dev mail list <dev.suckless.org> > > On 05/19/2010 12:42 PM, Anselm R Garbe wrote: > >I think the existing shell script based dmenu caching is > >already quite fast (assumed the cache exists) > > The reason I wrote this is occasional lag when executing dmenu. I'm > not sure I've fixed the problem, though (= Consider it an exercise > in practical tool programming. > > > and I doubt that your > >native tool does make the cache propagation itself faster. > > What does "propagation" mean here? It _does_ make reading the cache > faster. Let me paste my unscientific tests: > > When cache is up-to-date: > $ time ./dmenu_path_c 2>&1 > /dev/null > > For the C program I get typically > real 0m0.008s > > For the shell script I get typically > real 0m0.032s
That's such a small difference... current shell solution caching is IMHO fast enought. > > When cache is old: > rm ~/.dmenu_cache; time ./dmenu_path_sh 2>&1 > /dev/null > > For the C program I get typically > real 0m0.047s > > For the shell script I get typically > real 0m0.700s > > Conclusion: 0.7 seconds is somewhat noticeable lag. It's another > question whether it's worth the effort to write the C program, but > hey, it's been done already. Well, I (and others possibly) have no concern about cache miss, my files in $PATH doesn't changes every five minutes :-) So, I see no reason to have it "mainline". -Ph -- Premysl "Anydot" Hruby, http://www.redrum.cz/ - I'm a signature virus. Please add me to your signature and help me spread!
