Re: [PATCH] mingw: emulate write(2) that fails with a EPIPE

> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
> 
> > My intuition (which I honestly did not verify using performance tests) was
> > that write() is called *much* more often than, say, open(),...
> 
> My gut feeling agrees with yours, but I do not think the frequency
> at which write() is called should be the primary factor when you
> decide to make its wrapper inlined.  Once you call write(2), you
> will hit either the disk or the network doing I/O, and at that point
> I'd expect that the cost of making an extra layer of wrapper call
> would be lost in the noise.  I'd worry a lot more about from how
> many callsites write() is called---by inlining the extra code that
> is run only when the underlying write(2) returns an error to many
> callsites, we would make the program as a whole bigger, and as the
> result other code needs to be evicted out of the instruction cache,
> which also would hurt performance.