> I think it was explained what's the problem with it > (increased executable binary size).
I acknowledge that I notice also slightly bigger binaries if I apply my suggestions on the current 1.2412 release with gcc 4.2.3 on my x86_64 computer. I am unsure if the same will happen with different compilers and linkers. Trade-offs between object code size and execution speed might be involved here. > I'm still open but you need to explain why your solution is better > in the used places. It will matter if the expression "sizeof(buffer)" is preferred over "sizeof(pointer)". This might not be the case yet. Regards, Markus ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100. Use priority code J8TL2D2. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone _______________________________________________ ntfs-3g-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ntfs-3g-devel
