Re: Getting the file name from a FILE *

Richard Tobin wrote:
> In article <zrydnV8pbO_bRfrV4p2dnAA@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> Tor Rustad  <bwzcab@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 
>>> Why would all the icon files be open at once?  That seems like a
>>> stupid design decision, and additional space for the filenames would
>>> be the least of your problems.
> 
>> Your interpretation, appear more stupid. :) FYI, I said "files to
open", 
>> that don't mean all files would be open _at once_.  Agreed?
> 
> Well, that would have been the natural interpretation, but in that

Instead of assuming others write something stupid, it's perhaps wise to 
reconsider your own smartness first.


> case what would the problem be with storing the file names?  The
> amount of space required corresponds to the number of simultaneously
> open files, not the total number ever opened.

FYI, an implementation of the standard C library free(), may or may not 
trigger a system call, which actually free the memory chunk allocated. 
Even if a program burn memory like a pig, modern OS'es will typically 
swap out unused memory pages anyway.


If the free() implementation is like you suggest, with an explicit 
system call for every free() call. Then, programs opening many files, 
might be slowed down by 1 extra system call per malloc(), and 1 extra 
system call per free(). That can become a lot of context switches... for 
no good reason at all.


The point is, bloated C compilers, are not very interesting to the 
gaming community, which a while back, used lcc for quite a different
reason.

-- 
Tor <echo bwzcab@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 | tr i-za-h a-z>