From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17259 invoked by alias); 23 Aug 2014 17:57:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Workers List List-Post: List-Help: X-Seq: 33044 Received: (qmail 3132 invoked from network); 23 Aug 2014 17:57:03 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-Originating-IP: [86.6.157.246] X-Spam: 0 X-Authority: v=2.1 cv=C8BnyG/+ c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=BvYiZ/UW0Fmn8Wufq9dPrg==:117 a=BvYiZ/UW0Fmn8Wufq9dPrg==:17 a=NLZqzBF-AAAA:8 a=uObrxnre4hsA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=q2GGsy2AAAAA:8 a=jkVOWV7ghZrvhJX-7vMA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=I6wTmPyJxzYA:10 a=m3vm3UoDflIA:10 a=YfLvMyPzPDAA:10 Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2014 18:51:27 +0100 From: Peter Stephenson To: zsh-workers@zsh.org Subject: Symlink chasing Message-ID: <20140823185127.79ba78a6@pws-pc.ntlworld.com> In-Reply-To: <140817103030.ZM12944@torch.brasslantern.com> References: <20140812212920.67dcb116@pws-pc.ntlworld.com> <29575.1407969294@thecus.kiddle.eu> <20140814093442.1a74c5b7@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri> <20140814103227.74c7d168@pwslap01u.europe.root.pri> <140814092045.ZM18007@torch.brasslantern.com> <20140814205429.44baf512@pws-pc.ntlworld.com> <140814214412.ZM4177@torch.brasslantern.com> <20140815112316.GA17063@localhost.localdomain> <140815101701.ZM5288@torch.brasslantern.com> <20140816003504.GB17063@localhost.localdomain> <140817103030.ZM12944@torch.brasslantern.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.8.0 (GTK+ 2.24.7; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sun, 17 Aug 2014 10:30:30 -0700 Bart Schaefer wrote: > The whole symlink-chasing code is probably ripe to be rewritten with > zsh-heap (or even malloc + static pointers) allocation unless we have > reason to beleive that's a serious performance issue. I'd be very surprised if it causes a performance problem if sensibly written. Ideally, it would be good not to rely on PATH_MAX at all, though that's a very long way off. pws