Re: Optimization Question

[Keith Thompson <kst@cts.com>]

dvdeug@my-deja.com writes:
> In article <yecd7dfjlgf.fsf@king.cts.com>,
>   Keith Thompson <kst@cts.com> wrote:
> > Depending on your OS and compiler, it may be possible to recompile, or
> > possibly modify, the GNU strings program to handle huge files
> > properly.  If this is possible, it's likely to be easier than
> > re-implementing it from scratch.
> 
> Why? If the program which I included in my first post was faster and
> worked on 17GB files (GNAT's runtime on my platform seems to have the
> same problem strings does), it would do what I need it do. It, in fact,
> produces a better output than strings does.

Ok, append "would have been" to my last sentence.  If you've already
re-implemented it, I suppose it doesn't make much difference.

<OFFTOPIC>
Hmm.  How does the GNU strings program fail?  I suspect that
     strings < hugefile
might work better than
    strings hugefile
If you feed the file to the program's standard input stream, it
won't try to open the whole thing.
</OFFTOPIC>

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst@cts.com  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center           <*>  <http://www.sdsc.edu/~kst>
MAKE MONEY FAST!!  DON'T FEED IT!!