Ouch...
-1 on this commit, pending further explanation. I'm loathe to see all of
that extra code go in there for a dubious performance benefit. Are you
*truly* saving any time? I see a while() loop in there copying data. Isn't
it almost always faster to let the compiler produce an optimized memcpy() or
somesuch?
Brian? Let's see some details/numbers here, or else please revert.
Cheers,
-g
On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 09:45:27PM -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> brianp 02/05/12 14:45:27
>
> Modified: buckets apr_brigade.c
> Log:
> Optimization for apr_brigade_puts(): skip the strlen computation
> in cases where a heap bucket at the end of the brigade has enough
> space to hold the string
>
> Revision Changes Path
> 1.39 +25 -0 apr-util/buckets/apr_brigade.c
>
> Index: apr_brigade.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /home/cvs/apr-util/buckets/apr_brigade.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.38
> retrieving revision 1.39
> diff -u -r1.38 -r1.39
> --- apr_brigade.c 10 Apr 2002 16:44:10 -0000 1.38
> +++ apr_brigade.c 12 May 2002 21:45:27 -0000 1.39
> @@ -452,6 +452,31 @@
> apr_brigade_flush flush, void
> *ctx,
> const char *str)
> {
> + apr_bucket *e = APR_BRIGADE_LAST(b);
> + if (!APR_BRIGADE_EMPTY(b) && APR_BUCKET_IS_HEAP(e)) {
> + /* If there is some space available in a heap bucket
> + * at the end of the brigade, start copying the string
> + */
> + apr_bucket_heap *h = e->data;
> + char *buf = h->base + e->start + e->length;
> + apr_size_t bytes_avail = h->alloc_len - e->length;
> + const char *s = str;
> +
> + while (bytes_avail && *s) {
> + *buf++ = *s++;
> + bytes_avail--;
> + }
> + e->length += (s - str);
> + if (!*s) {
> + return APR_SUCCESS;
> + }
> + str = s;
> + }
> +
> + /* If the string has not been copied completely to the brigade,
> + * delegate the remaining work to apr_brigade_write(), which
> + * knows how to grow the brigade
> + */
> return apr_brigade_write(b, flush, ctx, str, strlen(str));
> }
>
>
>
>
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
