Hello,
The attached optimization patch was inspired be reviewing the
following code:
> Parser::parse(const SBuf &aBuf)
...
> if (preservedData_.isEmpty())
> preservedData_ = aBuf; // avoid needless memory allocation
> else
> preservedData_.append(aBuf);
Supporting this kind of optimi
On 7/10/2016 5:01 a.m., Alex Rousskov wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The attached optimization patch was inspired be reviewing the
> following code:
>
>> Parser::parse(const SBuf &aBuf)
> ...
>> if (preservedData_.isEmpty())
>> preservedData_ = aBuf; // avoid needless memory allocation
>> else
>>
On 10/06/2016 10:57 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> Please add a check to the unit test testSBuf::testAppendSBuf()
> to guarantee that the (*this = S) assignment code path updates the store
> reference count rather than doing a bit-wise copy of the SBuf.
I support that addition but do not have the tim
On 7/10/2016 6:20 a.m., Alex Rousskov wrote:
> On 10/06/2016 10:57 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
>
>> Please add a check to the unit test testSBuf::testAppendSBuf()
>> to guarantee that the (*this = S) assignment code path updates the store
>> reference count rather than doing a bit-wise copy of the SB
On 11/04/2016 08:22 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> On 7/10/2016 6:20 a.m., Alex Rousskov wrote:
>> On 10/06/2016 10:57 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
>>
>>> Please add a check to the unit test testSBuf::testAppendSBuf()
>>> to guarantee that the (*this = S) assignment code path updates the store
>>> referenc
