Rockbox mail archive

• Next message: Leif Sawyer: "RE: another 8MB upgrade success story"
• Previous message: Daniel Stenberg: "Re: another 8MB upgrade success story"
• In reply to: Daniel Stenberg: "Re: another 8MB upgrade success story"
• Next in thread: roland: "Re: another 8MB upgrade success story"
• Reply: roland: "Re: another 8MB upgrade success story"
• Reply: Uwe Freese: "Re[2]: another 8MB upgrade success story"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

It's a persuasive FAQ.

But (for example) I'm thinking I have no directories approaching 400 files. My biggest directory contains 89, and my average directory probably 15.

If I could save the additional bytes on the directory listing, I could read more bytes per disk spin-up, reducing disk usage and increasing my battery life.

Quoting Daniel Stenberg <daniel_at_haxx.se>:

> On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, TP Diffenbach wrote:
>
> > What's the objection dynamic allocation? Runtime cost? Size of
> the code
> > required to support it?
>
> The main objection is that we don't gain enough.
>
> As outlined in this FAQ entry:
>
> http://rockbox.haxx.se/docs/faq.html#54
>
> --
> Daniel Stenberg -- http://rockbox.haxx.se/ --
> http://daniel.haxx.se/
>

-- 
Archos FM needs a Rockbox!

• Next message: Leif Sawyer: "RE: another 8MB upgrade success story"
• Previous message: Daniel Stenberg: "Re: another 8MB upgrade success story"
• In reply to: Daniel Stenberg: "Re: another 8MB upgrade success story"
• Next in thread: roland: "Re: another 8MB upgrade success story"
• Reply: roland: "Re: another 8MB upgrade success story"
• Reply: Uwe Freese: "Re[2]: another 8MB upgrade success story"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]