Refactoring no-vfs

[metux]

Building w/o VFS seems quite a bit broken now.
Refactoring it, eg. moving stuff from src/vfsdummy.h into vfs/vfs.h and get rid of some #ifdef VFS
branch:1818_refactoring_no_vfs
changeset:6c4ff4d6bb0a14627667f77c697ebdd7a0780ec9

[andrew_b]

vfs/vfs.h

223	    p = strdup (p); 

254	#endif                          /* MC_VFSDUMMY_H */

Please fix that.

And use g_strdup() instead of strdup() and g_snprintf() instead of snprintf().

[metux]

In which way is g_strdup()/g_snprint() better than strdup()/snprintf(), despite being slower ?

[andrew_b]

Actually, in most cases (99%) that glib functions are used in MC.

[metux]

That doesnt change the fact, that these two functions are nothing but slow wrappers, without any technical benetif it that case.

Just look at the source:
g_snprintf() calls g_vsnprintf() calls vsnprintf()

Calling snprintf() is the direct way. And a clever compiler can
optimize much more (eg. inlining statically predictable cases).

[andrew_b]

Just look at glibc source. You'll see the same way.

[andrew_b]

Replying to metux:

That doesnt change the fact, that these two functions are nothing but slow wrappers,

OK, let's compare:

#include <stdio.h>
#include <sys/types.h>

int
main (int argc, char *argv[])
{
 size_t i, j;
 char buf[32];

 for (i = 0; i < 10000; i++)
     for (j = 0; j < 10000; j++)
         snprintf (buf, sizeof (buf), "%ll", i + j);

 return 0;
}

/* Result:
   $ time ./test-snprintf
   9.50user 0.00system 0:09.51elapsed 99%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
   0inputs+0outputs (0major+114minor)pagefaults 0swaps
*/

#include <sys/types.h>
#include <glib.h>

int
main (int argc, char *argv[])
{
 size_t i, j;
 char buf[32];

 for (i = 0; i < 10000; i++)
     for (j = 0; j < 10000; j++)
         g_snprintf (buf, sizeof (buf), "%ll", i + j);

 return 0;
}

/* Result:
   $ time ./test-gsnprintf
   10.14user 0.00system 0:10.15elapsed 99%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
   0inputs+0outputs (0major+137minor)pagefaults 0swaps
*/

Tested on Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E6850 @ 3.00GHz

Yes, slower by 0.6 s for 100,000,000 iterations. Is it too much for you?

[andrew_b]

Enrico, you stubbornly replace glib functions. I don't thing that you will give any votes for your changes.