Follow-up Comment #4, bug #51506 (project findutils):
>For optimization issues, people usually come with a certain, reproducible
case to point out a bottleneck.
I suggest a software adjustment where I can also imagine that you might not
interpret its impact in significant ways because a specific functionality is
already available.
>With that (only), we could start working on it.
I disagree here. - I dared to point a place out where it can happen that a bit
more data processing would be performed so far than required.
* Can it occasionally help with software efficiency to work a bit less at the
beginning?
* How much can it matter to avoid additional copies for directory names (or
just prefixes)?
>… what is wrong with "-printf '%f\n'"?
A process category exists which would use a fixed output function there. So
the specification of such a command line parameter would also be a bit too
much extra data (besides the internal parsing structures) under the view of
special efficiency expectations.
The corresponding processes would depend on a built-in system configuration
for file searches.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?51506>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via/by Savannah
http://savannah.gnu.org/
