Re: [Patch, libgfortran] PR25949 Excessive memory usage due to buffering.

[Janne Blomqvist <jblomqvi at cc dot hut dot fi>]

On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 07:29:40PM -0800, Jerry DeLisle wrote:
> Janne Blomqvist wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >Attached patch fixes one case I found were the library uses excessive
> >memory.
> >
> >It also avoids calling lseek() unless necessary just before a read()
> >or write(). This should fix an issue brought up by Bud Davis a long
> >time ago, where unformatted sequential performance was slow on NFS due
> >to the need to lseek() back and fix the record size, and then lseek()
> >forwards to the end of the record again. As long as the markers and
> >the record fits in the buffer, this is no longer an issue with this
> >patch. Unfortunately there is still one unnecessary lseek():in
> >occuring per record, so it's not optimal yet.
> >
> >Also some minor cleanup/simplification.
> >
> >Regtested on i686-pc-linux-gnu. Ok for trunk? It's a quite minor fix
> >after all, so I don't think it should go into 4.1.
> >
> This passed all NIST tests except fm311.f which is an unrelated compile 
> error.
> 
> As far as 4.1 goes, I thought the discussion was to keep 4.1 and 4.2 synced 
> as close as possible so it does not get too difficult to backport patches 
> later.  I am not an approver of course, but would vote for moving it to 4.1 
> as soon as makes sense.  (It can't hurt)

My concern was mainly that the 4.1 release is getting close, and as
the patch fixes a rather obscure bug I didn't want to risk introducing
regressions in 4.1.

But I don't have any big feelings about this; if you guys think it
should go into 4.1 I'll be happy to oblige.

As for you not being an approver, considering the good work you have
done, I definitely think that should be changed. What do you other
guys think?

-- 
Janne Blomqvist

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature