On 05/24/2014 06:32 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> It looks like it makes sense to double IO_BUFSIZE once again.
> What do you think?
+1
Significant enough to bump up I think,
and we never saw regressions with this size.
Please amend the date etc. at the top of the comment too.
Here are the results f
* doc/coreutils.texi: Add "@documentencoding UTF-8".
---
doc/coreutils.texi | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/doc/coreutils.texi b/doc/coreutils.texi
index 592f4a6..a6dd075 100644
--- a/doc/coreutils.texi
+++ b/doc/coreutils.texi
@@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
@c %**start of header
@setfilena
On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 1:59 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
> On 05/24/2014 06:32 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> It looks like it makes sense to double IO_BUFSIZE once again.
>> What do you think?
>
> +1
>
> Significant enough to bump up I think,
> and we never saw regressions with this size.
>
> Please ame