This is the mail archive of the firstname.lastname@example.org
mailing list for the Cygwin project. See the Cygwin
home page for more information.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Re: Time taken for ls -la --color=yes
- To: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Time taken for ls -la --color=yes
- From: "Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" <email@example.com>
- Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 13:33:51 -0500
- Delivered-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Delivered-To: mailing list email@example.com
- In-Reply-To: <199903081826.NAA16303@acestes-fe0.ultra.net>
- Mailing-List: contact firstname.lastname@example.org; run by ezmlm
- References: <36E40422.157007C1@atos-group.com><199903081638.LAA11084@y11a165.neo.rr.com><36E40422.157007C1@atos-group.com>
- Sender: email@example.com
At 01:26 PM 3/8/99 -0500, Henry J. Cobb wrote:
>Doesn't LS take a lot of time to count the entries in every subdirectory it
>encounters (even when it never lists them) just in order to fill out the
>stat structures it then throws away?
Perhaps you can tell us, since you seem to imply that you know something
about the way ls works. If it does work exactly as you suggest, then I
would say there is cause to be concerned about ls, although that comment
is based solely on yours and my incomplete understanding as to why ls would
do this. Of course, if ls is doing this, it is outside the realm of
the cygwin DLL, since it only provides services to ls. In this case, a
patch may need to be made to ls and, quite possibly, for cygwin only.
However, without more information, its hard to pursue the idea that either
ls or cygwin could be patched to make ls faster...
Larry Hall firstname.lastname@example.org
RFK Partners, Inc. (781) 239-1053
8 Grove Street (781) 239-1655
Wellesley, MA, 02482-7797 http://www.rfk.com
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to email@example.com