Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 01:15:24 +0300
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: "Leonid Pauzner" <uue AT pauzner DOT dnttm DOT ru>
Message-Id: <2593-Sun27Oct2002011523+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: emacs 21.3.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <2.7.9.15OOH.H4M4AK@pauzner.dnttm.ru> (uue@pauzner.dnttm.ru)
Subject: Re: libc' getenv optimization (patch3)
References: <10210150631 DOT AA20605 AT clio DOT rice DOT edu>
    <2 DOT 7 DOT 9 DOT 1C51G DOT H41539 AT pauzner DOT dnttm DOT ru> <2 DOT 7 DOT 9 DOT 15OOH DOT H4M4AK AT pauzner DOT dnttm DOT ru>
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> From: "Leonid Pauzner" <uue AT pauzner DOT dnttm DOT ru>
> Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 02:37:32 +0400 (MSD)
> 
> set_hash_env() now uses a single realloc, if any (literally: only the first
> allocation in most cases), its weight is nearly as much as 2 old getenv calls
> and definitely less then putenv().

What will this do to programs that access environ[] directly?  Since
this change resyncs environ[] with the hash table only when `getenv'
is called (or did I understand your code wrongly?), won't such
programs break?