On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 07:00:07PM +0100, René Scharfe wrote:
> Am 24.01.2017 um 00:54 schrieb Jeff King:
> > The speed looks like a reasonable outcome. I'm torn on the qsort_r()
> > demo patch. I don't think it looks too bad. OTOH, I don't think I would
> > want to deal with the
Am 24.01.2017 um 00:54 schrieb Jeff King:
The speed looks like a reasonable outcome. I'm torn on the qsort_r()
demo patch. I don't think it looks too bad. OTOH, I don't think I would
want to deal with the opposite-argument-order versions.
The code itself may look OK, but it's not really
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 12:44:10PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> Hi Peff,
>
> On Mon, 23 Jan 2017, Jeff King wrote:
>
> > Is there any interest in people adding the ISO qsort_s() to their libc
> > implementations? It seems like it's been a fair number of years by now.
>
> Visual C
Hi Peff,
On Mon, 23 Jan 2017, Jeff King wrote:
> Is there any interest in people adding the ISO qsort_s() to their libc
> implementations? It seems like it's been a fair number of years by now.
Visual C supports it *at least* since Visual Studio 2005:
On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 06:47:18PM +0100, René Scharfe wrote:
> Use qsort_s() from C11 Annex K to make string_list_sort() safer, in
> particular when called from parallel threads.
>
> Changes from v1:
> * Renamed HAVE_QSORT_S to HAVE_ISO_QSORT_S in Makefile to disambiguate.
> * Added basic perf
Use qsort_s() from C11 Annex K to make string_list_sort() safer, in
particular when called from parallel threads.
Changes from v1:
* Renamed HAVE_QSORT_S to HAVE_ISO_QSORT_S in Makefile to disambiguate.
* Added basic perf test (patch 3).
* Converted a second caller to QSORT_S, in ref-filter.c
6 matches
Mail list logo
