From: Austin Ziegler <austin@...>
Date: 2002-06-22T03:56:47+09:00
Subject: Re: Why is I/O slow?

On Sat, 22 Jun 2002 03:06:20 +0900, Chris Ross wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 22, 2002 at 02:26:15AM +0900, Ian Macdonald muttered...
[...]
>> If using glibc makes sense in the cases that it's available, why
>> would you not want to do so in such cases?
[...]
> The most stright forward way is to provide a general solution to
> the general problem and then start worrying about the corner cases
> that only a fraction of the users have issues with. And if you
> want tight control over buffering [as matz stated he does] the
> easiest way to do it is to implement it himself touching the real
> world as little as possible until necessary [eg. flushing that
> buffer].

Would it not be possible to make it something that is a compile-time
option, though? That is, by default, Ruby compiles with the default
implementation, but a configure/compile-option can cause it to use
glibc implementations instead?

-austin
-- Austin Ziegler, austin@halostatue.ca on 2002.06.21 at 14.53.48