On Tue, Mar 06, 2007 at 02:01:19AM +0100, Roland Illig wrote:
> Bill Stouder-Studenmund wrote:
> >So while I'm mildly concerned about the 1K this buffer would add, I
> >will be VERY upset if this actually gets turned on by default. :-)
> 
> What about dynamically allocated, reference-counted strings? I currently 
> have 68 processes on my system, but only 10 unique working directories. 
> None of the directories has more than 100 characters. That would not 
> waste too much (data) memory, though the code may become a little larger.

The actual propblem is that the proposed 'feature' breaks all the standards.

Reference counted strings are really only feasable when the values are
inherited, many of your processes will have different parent histories.
Also the complexity and locking requirements for such shared data become
a non-trivial cost themselves.

	David

-- 
David Laight: david@l8s.co.uk