Re: performance issue questions
Keith Packard <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.fonts.fontconfig |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Akira TAGOH <[email protected]> writes: > The former one was what I took measures for that. I expect it works as long > as the process is done within the most accurate time. Is there some place we could add a suitable delay to ensure that file system without sub-section timestamps could get reliable results using inexpensive timestamp checking, rather than expensive file scanning? I recall placing a 'sleep' in the cache generation code, but presumably that's insufficient? -- -keith _______________________________________________ Fontconfig mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/fontconfig
signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 832 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEw4O3eCVWE9/bQJ2R2yIaaQAAABEFAlg7wNoACgkQ2yIaaQAA ABEIRg/8C7krT7ud3yP83jC5nyBYa1LQpj54Kp99POI4HkIROGtB+lKxJYt8qCDr XIW6Cxj3TZTmJZZ1vkJ44JnBks3BkZIlU2IwfymQzQgkx7h3O4gkQsqKb+TVA/PA V5at8SgCQwHcKB7jaHuKigAP+NErzOylozirIevHj7RpYCLGcTTCmNs8WnQsHa/V 2vXVhxu71DneLgUPzfRFtNnFPZjJVZlXgjLD4Lh6J/fiM486P6t+IBEo4+SRs/ej PxK3PoreSV73fW+uMBwEhNxNbpGm6TwZjKiHT2KEUFSkGoUgPpifvJxUNo5BMxQC F7WhP+5LoA80InvEJIITgwpUZ9MpbE3gRuIJI1aAEQ5StO0YVSBBlf9+rEXEmZG1 2EOkUDsQ0+sTimRYWoBnEQLU73q4Nj2a7Ts0urJ8dj7GR/GDqC3raC3ISePxOo4W eVGGcRr2IiVneYdDezw5nTBf4hbdhfr9GapdkRRoHzIfRNofUDkhKhOfzldaI/gT 4lGpwDjLzE3NdoXtqOeMzHNIrAYj6LSPk8CQkNW6TS01VsOO3qI0XA+jDD0M6x5w 9OS+P0GC3RFB3nrNaPpbwUnVMLXX22WBBFO8YtY3VRHlRSgFs2g66OJpCJQehowx FTcWpkZ1o/wPRTTx2O77ZU926pposeTN9/hGNn9RTxg+VcAZt3A= =CrPN -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----