Re: [dev] dmenu_path rewrite in C

in my laptop difference is between 0.4s and 0.02s which is enought
important performance change for me.

I also suffer this slow down in the shellscript version..but sometimes
it gets about 5 or 10 seconds to complete (at first boot, or after
updating the system). which is really anoying.

i would probably even improve the heap usage of this .c, but it's
better solution than the shellscript one IMHO.

On Wed, 19 May 2010 12:09:33 +0200
Premysl Hruby <dfenze_AT_gmail.com> wrote:

> On (19/05/10 12:58), Elmo Todurov wrote:
> > Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 12:58:16 +0300
> > From: Elmo Todurov <todurov_AT_gmail.com>
> > To: dev mail list <dev_AT_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!
>
Received on Wed May 19 2010 - 10:32:06 UTC