On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 10:54:59 PM UTC+8, rog wrote: > > This program reports only one allocation per operation, which seems > to indicate that your solution is already the right one: > > https://play.golang.org/p/Fx1EMYKRRd > > > Yes, but only for small strings with length <= 32
https://play.golang.org/p/TfdahRKVr3 > On 1 February 2017 at 09:18, T L <tapi...@gmail.com <javascript:>> wrote: > > Sometimes, I want to create a new string which will not share the > underlying > > bytes with other strings. > > For example, to avoid the substring memory leak problem. > > > > newStr := string([]byte(oldStr)) is simple but will make two memory > > allocations, and one of them is a waste. > > > > There are two solutions which only make one memory allocation in > > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/golang-nuts/naMCI9Jt6Qg > > (code: https://play.golang.org/p/3rVsMTaHUz). > > But in that thread, someone said the two are not safe from being > optimized > > unexpectedly in later compiler versions. > > > > I found the most approached function in the standard lib is > > strings.Repeat(), but it also makes two memory allocations. > > > > Is there a safe way to do this with only one memory allocation? > > > > > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > > "golang-nuts" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send > an > > email to golang-nuts...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
