On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 04:58:40PM +0200, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote: > On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Ondřej Bílka <nel...@seznam.cz> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 04:44:44PM +0200, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Ondřej Bílka <nel...@seznam.cz> wrote: > >> > On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 03:58:12PM +0200, Maciej Fijalkowski wrote: > >> >> it's sort-of-known, we have a branch to try to address this, the main > >> >> problem is that we try to do buffering ourselves as opposed to just > >> >> use libc buffering, which turns out to be not as good. Sorry about > >> >> that :/ > >> >> > >> > Do you have testcase to report? I could fix that. > >> > >> testcase of what? PyPy buffering not being up to scratch compared to > >> libc buffering? > > > > Why libc buffering is bad so it could be fixed. > > no, libc buffering is good and we should use it as opposed to our > home-grown solution which is bad and likely should be thrown away ;-)
Ok, I wrongly parsed your sentence to mean that we do buffering ourself because libc one is bad. _______________________________________________ pypy-dev mailing list pypy-dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
