On Thu, Oct 6, 2022, 17:56 Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > I actually just copy-pasted the header from another test, would it be
> simpler if i just removed it?
>
>
> Yes, that's probably the simplest solution, and then add a
> Signed-off-by: tag in your patch email, to state you're contributing
> it
On Thu, 6 Oct 2022 at 17:33, Charles-François Natali
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2022, 14:29 Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>
>> Sorry for the lack of review. I've been trying to remember (and find)
>> some previous discussions related to this topic, but haven't managed
>> to find it yet.
>
>
> No worries
On Thu, Oct 6, 2022, 14:29 Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> Sorry for the lack of review. I've been trying to remember (and find)
> some previous discussions related to this topic, but haven't managed
> to find it yet.
>
No worries!
> The patch does look sensible (and is the same as the one attached
Sorry for the lack of review. I've been trying to remember (and find)
some previous discussions related to this topic, but haven't managed
to find it yet.
The patch does look sensible (and is the same as the one attached to
PR 63746) so I'll make sure to review it in time for the GCC 13
cut-off.
On Thu, Sep 22, 2022, 17:51 Charles-François Natali
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 5, 2022, 23:51 Charles-Francois Natali
> wrote:
>
>> `basic_filebuf::xsputn` would bypass the buffer when passed a chunk of
>> size 1024 and above, seemingly as an optimisation.
>>
>> This can have a significant performan
