2017-08-29 7:25 GMT+02:00 Thomas Helland :
> 2017-08-28 11:47 GMT+02:00 Nicolai Hähnle :
>> On 28.08.2017 11:13, Nicolai Hähnle wrote:
>>>
>>> On 28.08.2017 03:51, Timothy Arceri wrote:
On 27/08/17 05:18, Thomas Helland wrote:
>
> Plowed through it a couple times, and it looks sol
2017-08-28 11:47 GMT+02:00 Nicolai Hähnle :
> On 28.08.2017 11:13, Nicolai Hähnle wrote:
>>
>> On 28.08.2017 03:51, Timothy Arceri wrote:
>>>
>>> On 27/08/17 05:18, Thomas Helland wrote:
Plowed through it a couple times, and it looks solid to me.
After thinking through it a couple ti
On 28.08.2017 11:13, Nicolai Hähnle wrote:
On 28.08.2017 03:51, Timothy Arceri wrote:
On 27/08/17 05:18, Thomas Helland wrote:
Plowed through it a couple times, and it looks solid to me.
After thinking through it a couple times it seems like this
should be more performant than my modification o
On 28.08.2017 03:51, Timothy Arceri wrote:
On 27/08/17 05:18, Thomas Helland wrote:
Plowed through it a couple times, and it looks solid to me.
After thinking through it a couple times it seems like this
should be more performant than my modification of Vladislav's
original implementation. Would
On 27/08/17 05:18, Thomas Helland wrote:
Plowed through it a couple times, and it looks solid to me.
After thinking through it a couple times it seems like this
should be more performant than my modification of Vladislav's
original implementation. Would be nice to see a performance
comparison tho
Plowed through it a couple times, and it looks solid to me.
After thinking through it a couple times it seems like this
should be more performant than my modification of Vladislav's
original implementation. Would be nice to see a performance
comparison though. I'll try to get some numbers up for it
From: Nicolai Hähnle
For building long strings by successive append operations.
---
src/util/Makefile.sources | 2 +
src/util/stringbuf.c | 185 ++
src/util/stringbuf.h | 97
3 files changed, 284 insertions(+)