Dan Espen wrote:
> Oops, looks like someone top posted:
>
> >
> > <snip>
> > > I would vote in favor of an increase.
>
> You might get your increase, but I don't really favor it.
> It just uses up some memory for an extreme case that can be avoided
> pretty easily.
Thanks to all who have responded to this thread.
You're quite right, Dan. My original posting campaigned for dynamic memory
allocation. My motivation is to minimize disk reads after the configuration is
loaded. True, reading and executing a short script from disk is a small price to
pay; on an idle system you'd never know the difference. But the system here on
which fvwm runs tends to be anything but idle. When interactive performance gets
sluggish, our users get cranky.
Bottom line - PipeRead is brilliant, indispensable - I'd like to see it be more
so.
Gregg Dameron
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL: http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm" in the body of a
message to majordomo_at_fvwm.org.
To report problems, send mail to fvwm-owner_at_fvwm.org.
Received on Thu Apr 18 2002 - 14:46:04 BST