Rob Browning writes:
> I haven't tried to track it down yet, but if the only underlying way to
> get a fixed block of data out of an OPEN_BOTH port is read-char, then
> that might explain much of the difference.
And this, in popen.scm was why I started wondering about that:
(call-with-values
Rob Browning writes:
> For what it's worth, in an earlier round of testing I also hacked up
> open-pipe to let me access the underlying ports and set their buffers to
> 65k. That doubled the transfer rate, but of course, it's still fairly
> slow.
I also ran statprof on the OPEN_BOTH case and sa
Rob Browning writes:
> While evaluating guile as a possibility to replace some python code,
> assuming I'm not just doing something wrong, I noticed that open-pipe
> appears to transfer data *much* more slowly than python when OPEN_BOTH is
> specified as opposed to OPEN_READ
Oh, and I should hav
While evaluating guile as a possibility to replace some python code,
assuming I'm not just doing something wrong, I noticed that open-pipe
appears to transfer data *much* more slowly than python when OPEN_BOTH is
specified as opposed to OPEN_READ:
discarding dev-zero as file: 12500.00 mb/s
d
