Re: icefox tests issues

>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
[email protected]