On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 01:40:24PM -0700, Daniel Burrows wrote:
With respect to that change, I wonder whether the speedup is from
changing += to push_back, or from changing += to copy() (perhaps
checking for the null terminator is expensive?). In the latter case,
how does string.append
On Sun, Apr 09, 2006 at 09:13:33AM +0300, Sami Liedes [EMAIL PROTECTED] was
heard to say:
Umh, sorry for a _really_ slow reply, apparently I lost or missed your
mail somehow. I only re-found this bug now. Replying in hope that it
is still useful :) And yes, the version number is a typo.
Umh, sorry for a _really_ slow reply, apparently I lost or missed your
mail somehow. I only re-found this bug now. Replying in hope that it
is still useful :) And yes, the version number is a typo.
Did you profile any of these changes separately? What were the objective
results from your
On Thu, Jul 21, 2005 at 08:06:53PM +0300, Sami Liedes wrote:
Package: apt
Version: 0.6.38
Tags: patch
Severity: wishlist
Hi,
I profiled aptitude a bit and found out that most of its slowness(*)
is due to apt (which shouldn't be that much of a surprise, aptitude
being mostly only a
Package: apt
Version: 0.6.38
Tags: patch
Severity: wishlist
Hi,
I profiled aptitude a bit and found out that most of its slowness(*)
is due to apt (which shouldn't be that much of a surprise, aptitude
being mostly only a frontend for apt). Here's a patch that speeds up
some things quite a bit,
On Thursday 21 July 2005 10:06 am, Sami Liedes wrote:
I profiled aptitude a bit and found out that most of its slowness(*)
is due to apt (which shouldn't be that much of a surprise, aptitude
being mostly only a frontend for apt). Here's a patch that speeds up
some things quite a bit,
6 matches
Mail list logo
