Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
>
> On Mar 22, 2005, at 3:12 PM, Philip Martin wrote:
>
>> Ben Collins-Sussman <sussman@collab.net> writes:
>>
>>> After four months of work, the locking branch is merged and gone.
>>>
>>> Huge thanks to Fitz and Lundblad, you guys were amazing. And thanks
>>> to Sander for helping with the libsvn_fs_base schema, and cmpilato and
>>> kfogel for undying support... and ... um... I'd like to thank the
>>> Academy...
>>>
>>> So start playing around. Find the bugs. I'd like to branch for 1.2
>>> in a week. :-)
>>
>>
>> I see that you changed the svn_wc_entry_t struture:
>>
>> - It is now about 20% bigger on a typical 32-bit machine. The entries
>> caching in the client means that there are lots of these in memory,
>> I don't know what proportion of the memory they use but it's
>> possible it will noticeably affect the memory used by the client.
>
>
> We've added three (const char *) fields and one apr_time_t to the entry
> structure.
>
> If we assume that most files will be unlocked most of the time, then
> those four new fields will almost always be NULL. This will still be a
> 20% memory increase?
>
>
>>
>> - I have a nasty feeling that it qualifies as an ABI change
>
>
> It does? I thought it was safe to add fields to the end of a structure.
Except that structure is defined in a public header file, so nothing
prevents a user from having allocated one on the stack in existing code,
or compiled sizeof (svn_wc_entry_t) somewhere... Of course it's hard to
see how such code would be used, they'd have to be manually creating
svn_wc_entry_ts, which is kind of fringe usage of the API, but it would
technically be valid, and technically is against our compat policy.
-garrett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Mar 23 00:03:01 2005