From: Alex Riesen <raa.lkml@gmail.com>
To: Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debian.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>,
git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Have a filter_start/filter_end API.
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 20:48:31 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20071008184831.GB3123@steel.home> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20071008072947.GB22552@artemis.corp>
Pierre Habouzit, Mon, Oct 08, 2007 09:29:47 +0200:
> On Sun, Oct 07, 2007 at 09:50:41PM +0000, Alex Riesen wrote:
> > Pierre Habouzit, Sun, Oct 07, 2007 18:52:18 +0200:
> > > Though, those are both things that I find ugly to "know" in convert.c.
> > > How things are allocated in strbufs is one of the few things we don't
> > > want to assume anywhere outside of the strbuf module.
> >
> > src is outside of strbuf scope. It is not internal to struct strbuf.
> > The caller must already know if it is inside of the given strbuf
> > instance.
> >
> > need_realloc is covered by make_room, isn't it?
>
> Internally yes, but make_room may move the buffer, if that happens,
> there is nothing we can do, in the case where we point inside (or at the
> begining of - fwiw it's the same here) the buffer
update the outside pointer you can. But I actually lost all interest:
personally I never use the filters and deeply despise the reasons
caused their existence.
> > I'd suggest just fix the caller, it is simple in convert.c: just use
> > ret, which contains exactly this information. If you insist on editing
> > in-place, which makes your routines really need the in-placeability
> > informaion. Just give it to them, better explicitely. All of this
> > makes the routines very convert.c specific, which is the reason why I
> > argument to have them just there and nowhere else.
> >
> > Alternatively, one can memdup ->buf (as it is the input for next
> > filter) every time a filter modifies it (which is safe, but simple,
> > slow, requires memory, and may fragment heap):
>
> This is exactly what we are trying to avoid with the current form.
I take this suggestion back. Do not use memdup, as it is slow,
requires lots of memory and may fragment heap. Sorry for repeating.
> Given how you try to micro-optimize strbuf_cmp I'm a bit lost here…
>
I didn't. It just happened. If I _wanted_ to optimize anything I
wouldn't start with a function which is used exactly one time in a
program with a name like "rerere" which is not even used in default
configuration.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-10-08 18:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-10-05 20:19 strbuf `filter' API Pierre Habouzit
[not found] ` <1191615571-15946-2-git-send-email-madcoder@debian.org>
2007-10-06 9:06 ` [PATCH 1/2] Have a filter_start/filter_end API Alex Riesen
2007-10-07 14:53 ` Pierre Habouzit
2007-10-07 16:07 ` Alex Riesen
2007-10-07 16:52 ` Pierre Habouzit
2007-10-07 21:50 ` Alex Riesen
2007-10-08 7:29 ` Pierre Habouzit
2007-10-08 18:48 ` Alex Riesen [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20071008184831.GB3123@steel.home \
--to=raa.lkml@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=madcoder@debian.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).