Re: RFC: doubling IO_BUFSIZE

2014-05-24 Thread Pádraig Brady
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

[PATCH] doc: use nicer quotes

2014-05-24 Thread Paul Eggert
* 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

Re: RFC: doubling IO_BUFSIZE

2014-05-24 Thread Jim Meyering
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