On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:21 PM, Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Julian Foad wrote:
> >>>> [...] I will be
> >>>> interested in reviewing the (single) implementation.
> Stefan wrote:
> > [...] Here the final version.
> > If that doesn't work either then I'm done for today.
> Stefan: First review comment: You can much more efficiently convert a
> stringbuf to a string (when you own it, like here) using
We could only do that if the stringbuf was allocated in
the result_pool. The original implementation allocates
the read buffer in the scratch_pool and I wanted to
preserve that characteristic. We might want to use
SVN__STREAM_CHUNK_SIZE as LEN_HINT, though
to prevent a few reallocations for larger streams.
> Second review question: did you
> consider whether the second implementation was in fact already better?
> For example, is using _appendbytes better or worse than using
> ensure(size x 2) followed by read()?
The appendbytes approach needs a separate buffer to
hold those bytes before they get appended. Ultimately,
it implements the same x2 growth scheme but adds a
copy and a temporary buffer.
Received on 2015-10-07 15:46:29 CEST