From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262058AbUCSJ3l (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Mar 2004 04:29:41 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262079AbUCSJ3l (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Mar 2004 04:29:41 -0500 Received: from mail.fh-wedel.de ([213.39.232.194]:47053 "EHLO mail.fh-wedel.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262058AbUCSJ3k (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Mar 2004 04:29:40 -0500 Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:29:30 +0100 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rn?= Engel To: Matt Mackall Cc: linux-kernel , discuss@x86-64.org, Tom Rini Subject: Re: [CFT] inflate.c rework arch testing needed Message-ID: <20040319092930.GA17938@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> References: <20040318231006.GK11010@waste.org> <20040319003252.GB11450@wohnheim.fh-wedel.de> <20040319030942.GM11010@waste.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20040319030942.GM11010@waste.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 18 March 2004 21:09:42 -0600, Matt Mackall wrote: > > The code for new versions of zlib is significantly scarier last I > checked and there's no particular advantage to it. But one of the > primary motivations here is to get to the point where something like > bunzip2 or even a new zlib is a drop-in replacement. Zlib 1.2.1 is supposed to be much faster, but they intoduced new code so the price appears to be size. I'll look into it for the other zlib in the kernel if noone finds the time before me. Jörn -- It's just what we asked for, but not what we want! -- anonymous