Re: [PATCH] Reduce apr_[i|l|off_t_]toa memory footprint for common cases

[Christophe JAILLET <ch...@wanadoo.fr>]

Le 28/03/2013 19:32, Jeff Trawick a écrit :
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Stefan Fritsch <sf...@sfritsch.de> wrote:
>> On Monday 25 March 2013, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
>>> As a first step, I noticed that apr_itoa, apr_ltoa, apr_off_t_toa
>>> could  be tweaked to require less memory for some common cases.
>>> The attached patch reduces memory use for small values, that is to
>>> say  for strings that fit in 8 bytes (including NULL)
>> Looks like a reasonable optimization to me.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Stefan
> When shrinking it down to 8, why not avoid the apr_palloc altogether?
> Also, how about lower-casing the name BUFFER_SIZE since it isn't
> const?
>
>
I'm not sure it is possible to avoid the call to apr_palloc.

For BUFFER_SIZE, I 100% agree with you. Previously it was a 'const int', 
and I just left it as it was.

There are also some tab vs space possible clean-up in these functions.

Finally, even if the 3 functions work the same way, they have different 
way to write it:
     *--start = '0' + (n % 10);
     *--start = (char)('0' + (n % 10));
     *--start = '0' + (char)(n % 10);
The 2nd version is, IMO, the best one.

I didn't include it in my patch to reduce the differences.

CJ

Re: [PATCH] Reduce apr_[i|l|off_t_]toa memory footprint for common cases

[Jeff Trawick <tr...@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 6:21 AM, Christophe JAILLET <
christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

> Le 28/03/2013 19:32, Jeff Trawick a écrit :
>
>  On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Stefan Fritsch <sf...@sfritsch.de> wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday 25 March 2013, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
>>>
>>>> As a first step, I noticed that apr_itoa, apr_ltoa, apr_off_t_toa
>>>> could  be tweaked to require less memory for some common cases.
>>>> The attached patch reduces memory use for small values, that is to
>>>> say  for strings that fit in 8 bytes (including NULL)
>>>>
>>> Looks like a reasonable optimization to me.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Stefan
>>>
>> When shrinking it down to 8, why not avoid the apr_palloc altogether?
>> Also, how about lower-casing the name BUFFER_SIZE since it isn't
>> const?
>>
>>
>>  I'm not sure it is possible to avoid the call to apr_palloc.
>

You're correct, of course :)


>
> For BUFFER_SIZE, I 100% agree with you. Previously it was a 'const int',
> and I just left it as it was.
>
> There are also some tab vs space possible clean-up in these functions.
>
> Finally, even if the 3 functions work the same way, they have different
> way to write it:
>     *--start = '0' + (n % 10);
>     *--start = (char)('0' + (n % 10));
>     *--start = '0' + (char)(n % 10);
> The 2nd version is, IMO, the best one.
>

preferred by me too


>
> I didn't include it in my patch to reduce the differences.
>
> CJ
>



-- 
Born in Roswell... married an alien...
http://emptyhammock.com/