2019.10.01 18:01 "[Tiff] TIFF_IO_MAX too large for Windows XP", by David C. Partridge
- 2019.10.01 19:10 "Re: [Tiff] TIFF_IO_MAX too large for Windows XP", by Bob Friesenhahn
-
2019.10.01 19:37 "Re: [Tiff] TIFF_IO_MAX too large for Windows XP", by Roger Leigh
- 2019.10.01 21:42 "Re: [Tiff] TIFF_IO_MAX too large for Windows XP", by Bob Friesenhahn
-
2019.10.02 02:39 "Re: [Tiff] TIFF_IO_MAX too large for Windows XP", by David C. Partridge
-
2019.10.10 12:10 "Re: [Tiff] TIFF_IO_MAX too large for Windows XP", by David C. Partridge
- 2019.10.10 12:14 "Re: [Tiff] TIFF_IO_MAX too large for Windows XP", by Edward Lam
-
2019.10.10 18:41 "Re: [Tiff] TIFF_IO_MAX too large for Windows XP", by Roger Leigh
- 2019.10.10 19:11 "Re: [Tiff] TIFF_IO_MAX too large for Windows XP", by Even Rouault
-
2019.10.10 19:40 "Re: [Tiff] TIFF_IO_MAX too large for Windows XP", by Bob Friesenhahn
- 2019.10.10 22:24 "Re: [Tiff] TIFF_IO_MAX too large for Windows XP", by David C. Partridge
-
2019.10.10 12:10 "Re: [Tiff] TIFF_IO_MAX too large for Windows XP", by David C. Partridge
- 2019.10.02 12:29 "Re: [Tiff] TIFF_IO_MAX too large for Windows XP", by Edward Lam
2019.10.11 02:55 "Re: [Tiff] TIFF_IO_MAX too large for Windows XP", by Edward Lam
On 10/10/2019 6:42 PM, Scott Ribe wrote:
Exactly that. I once, with an old version of Windows NT, saw performance gains all the way up to 2MB, but only once--and that was a screwy system, where at smaller sizes it was unreasonably slow. Other than that, never above 256KB. Unless someone has specific evidence that 32MB is better than 16MB to contradict all that experience, then it's just not needed and completely reasonable to drop to 16MB.
Regardless of what we do for this, can we at least move the TIFF_IO_MAX define into some header so that tif_win32.c can also use it instead of having a hardcoded 0x80000000UL literal?
-Edward