Thread (24 messages) flat view 24 messages, 3 authors, 2016-06-15

Re: [RFC 16/17] object_array_entry: copy name before storing in name field

From: Jeff King <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:57:20

On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 04:42:38PM +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote:
quoted
quoted
* Many callers store the empty string ("") as the name; for example,
  most of the entries created during a run of rev-list have "" as
  their name.  This means that lots of needless copies of "" are being
  made.  I think that the best solution to this problem would be to
  store NULL rather than "" for such entries, but I haven't figured
  out all of the places where the name is used.
Use strbufs?

No allocation (except for the strbuf object itself) is needed for
empty strings, and string ownership and be transferred to and from it
to prevent extra copies.
That would cost two extra size_t per object_array_entry.  I have the
feeling that this structure is used often enough that the extra overhead
would be a disadvantage, but I'm not sure.

The obvious alternative would be to teach users to deal with NULL and
either add another constructor alternative that transfers string
ownership or *always* transfer string ownership and change the callers
to call xstrdup() if they don't already own the name string.  I think I
will try that approach first.
You could use the same trick that strbuf does: instead of NULL, point to
a well-known empty string literal. Readers do not have to care about
this optimization at all; only writers need to recognize the well-known
pointer value. And since we do not update in place but only eventually
free, it really is just that anyone calling free() would do "if (name !=
well_known_empty_string)".

-Peff
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help