Cliff Woolley wrote:
On Wed, 26 Sep 2001, Brian Pane wrote:
apr_pstrcat does two passes through its args: one to compute the
length, a second to do the copying. This patch adds a buffer to
save the lengths of the first 6 args so that the second pass
doesn't need to another strlen on them.
On Wed, 26 Sep 2001, Brian Pane wrote:
> apr_pstrcat does two passes through its args: one to compute the
> length, a second to do the copying. This patch adds a buffer to
> save the lengths of the first 6 args so that the second pass
> doesn't need to another strlen on them.
Ryan Bloom wrote:
On Wednesday 26 September 2001 06:57 pm, Brian Pane wrote:
Ryan Bloom wrote:
[...]
+static const int MAX_SAVED_LENGTHS = 6;
Why is this a static const istead of a #define?
So that its scope will be limited to the enclosing function
But why is that a good thing? This should be
On Wednesday 26 September 2001 06:57 pm, Brian Pane wrote:
> Ryan Bloom wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >+static const int MAX_SAVED_LENGTHS = 6;
> >
> >Why is this a static const istead of a #define?
>
> So that its scope will be limited to the enclosing function
But why is that a good thing? This shou
Ryan Bloom wrote:
[...]
+static const int MAX_SAVED_LENGTHS = 6;
Why is this a static const istead of a #define?
So that its scope will be limited to the enclosing function
--Brian
On Wednesday 26 September 2001 06:34 pm, Brian Pane wrote:
> I instrumented apr_pstrcat and found that, in Apache 2.0, the number of
> strings it's asked to concatenate is 6 or less 99+% of the time.
>
> apr_pstrcat does two passes through its args: one to compute the
> length
I instrumented apr_pstrcat and found that, in Apache 2.0, the number of
strings it's asked to concatenate is 6 or less 99+% of the time.
apr_pstrcat does two passes through its args: one to compute the
length, a second to do the copying. This patch adds a buffer to
save the lengths of the fi
On Sun, 8 Jul 2001, Cliff Woolley wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Jul 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > I think you misunderstand my meaning.
>
> Would you expect anything else? That's my specialty. ;-)
I tend to jump ahead of myself and not explain what I mean. I just expect
everybody to read my mind.
On Sat, 7 Jul 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I think you misunderstand my meaning.
Would you expect anything else? That's my specialty. ;-)
> We should do both.
Cool. +1.
--Cliff
--
Cliff Woolley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Charl
> On Sat, 7 Jul 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > +1, personally I would prefer to have the length returned in the parameter
> > list.
>
> I was leaning that way as well for consistency with apr_pstrcat().
>
> > Or, we could do something I have been conside
On Sat, 7 Jul 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> +1, personally I would prefer to have the length returned in the parameter
> list.
I was leaning that way as well for consistency with apr_pstrcat().
> Or, we could do something I have been considering since I started
> APR. We cou
On Sun, 8 Jul 2001, Cliff Woolley wrote:
>
> You know, it'd be really cool if there were a version of apr_pstrcat()
> that returned the length of the concatenated output. There are LOTS of
> places where we call apr_pstrcat() and then immediately have to call
> strlen()
You know, it'd be really cool if there were a version of apr_pstrcat()
that returned the length of the concatenated output. There are LOTS of
places where we call apr_pstrcat() and then immediately have to call
strlen() on its output, when apr_pstrcat() itself is already computing the
l
13 matches
Mail list logo
