j
: Next unread message k
: Previous unread message j a
: Jump to all threads
j l
: Jump to MailingList overview
On Friday 27 April 2007 2:03 am, Andreas Raab wrote:
subbukk wrote:
An strace of squeak (3.7.7) startup reveals 181 attempts to open of which 179 fails with ENOENT.
Why is that a problem?
The primary risk is that we may hit a file which may not be what we want. E.g. If I happen to run a test squeak vm from /usr/lib/squeak/3.7-7, a wrong plugin would be picked.
A secondary problem is that each open in an unlikely location costs time and processor cycles. This may not matter on desktops but will impact small factor machines like XO (unnecessary battery drain).
A second
BTW, running (Kubuntu Dapper)
squeak -plugins /usr/lib/squeak/3.7-7 -vm-sound-OSS squeak.image
reduced the number of opens for vm-* plugins from 181 to 2 and the number of failures to 0. On Unix, the search order for sound modules is MACOS, Sun and only then OSS :-(. We could compile each platform's binary to be smart in picking the most likely display and sound plugins.
Regards .. Subbu
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org