icefox tests issues
Raul Fernandes
rgfernandes at correioweb.com.br
Fri Oct 22 04:00:32 CEST 2004
>That's slightly more than 20% time saved in the best case, and it is for code
>only executing empty loops. Adding some useful code into the body loops would
>reduce the improvement, and KDE applications also don't spend all the time
>just iterating over lists. In reality the gain could possibly be even
>negligibly small.
>That said, I don't see any good reason against, so if you're willing to do
>this tedious work and do the changes in KDE, why not?
In a directory with >2000 files to interate over, adding a UDSEntry for every
file to interate over, we could have a small improvement, maybe not so
negligibly small. Improving all loops like this, we can get a speedup.
>That should be sufficient. You could also probably get a CVS account to do
>your changes yourself if you're willing to work more on this.
Well, I took this as a Junior Job, really. This type of "bugfix" makes a
newbie (like me) be more familiar with the code to make more deeper changes
in the future. How can I get a CVS account and start the work?? Or only send
patches here??
Raul Fernandes
rgfernandes at correioweb.com.br
More information about the Kde-optimize
mailing list