It's so obvious to me that indexed tables and direct access are much faster
than a binary search and several if expressions, I am not going to waste my
time on it. (If you prefer, make up a 16KB table and do two divide and
then two if expression vs. binary search and then bunch of if expressions
for all Unicode BMP characters 1,000 times for all different kind of
hardware configurations. You will see which one is better. If you don't agree
on this, that is perfectly fine with me.)
More important thing is, the kernel needs wcwidth or such function to have
proper erase support in terminals/terminal emulators.
With regards,
Ienup
] Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 23:06:35 +0000 (GMT)
] From: Robert Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
] Subject: Re: wcwidth performance
] X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
] MIME-version: 1.0
]
] On Fri, 26 Jan 2001, Ienup Sung wrote:
]
] > wrapping, and so on, performance can be a matter and every little bit
counts.
]
] Please, until such time as you have actually done the benchmarking, don't
] suggest that indexed tables are faster than a bsearch. No point
] speculating about performance when it is so easy to find out facts.
]
] This was the main thrust of Markus's mail, and one that you totally
] ignored.
]
] --
] Robert Brady
] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
]
] -
] Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels
] Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/lists/
-
Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels
Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/lists/
