Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author
Re: Possible huge setarrvalue optimization
- X-seq: zsh-workers 40267
- From: Sebastian Gniazdowski <psprint@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Daniel Shahaf <d.s@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "zsh-workers@xxxxxxx" <zsh-workers@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Possible huge setarrvalue optimization
- Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2017 13:31:52 -0500
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=default; t=1483554712; bh=m3n69eXmITTMHt+omCEfTz/YHNGZ8YBNNJPOoaxhMCM=; h=Date:To:From:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Feedback-ID: From; b=myYFQGvkizZELwADbsBGnQJFXtIpUennP5m9ozbInqZUupYc6Y9CSZsurk/Rq0iNM E7LZl+dy5MNxpC6FUzVqsLdLjVxYBfsrugOqbd3PQJvXksaC6fTtcJS0uxtTPnQd9L IvO+IrKQp35JYIpVo32b67OYoLtozIGGyNmL421k=
- Feedback-id: n8vhQeMg8gcF_i4HjViOQAxa9T5VRuUA88GY-ziCDDzRPt_42LIJNlWJ9Md3T-Bnym1gjci_iPC0xIpBhEJnGQ==:Ext:ProtonMail
- In-reply-to: <20161224171936.GA19748@fujitsu.shahaf.local2>
- List-help: <mailto:zsh-workers-help@zsh.org>
- List-id: Zsh Workers List <zsh-workers.zsh.org>
- List-post: <mailto:zsh-workers@zsh.org>
- Mailing-list: contact zsh-workers-help@xxxxxxx; run by ezmlm
- References: <1479449829.1305485.791811385.14DDFE28@webmail.messagingengine.com> <1479461540.1340250.791913609.27FAD722@webmail.messagingengine.com> <1479471620.1371132.792049209.295BE093@webmail.messagingengine.com> <20161120114648.GA6953@fujitsu.shahaf.local2> <CAH+w=7YsEm=3WF_fs5Zyv9n+z7QOtwyOqss6Yv9Vpvtdqz_eiA@mail.gmail.com> <20161224171936.GA19748@fujitsu.shahaf.local2>
- Reply-to: Sebastian Gniazdowski <psprint@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Possible huge setarrvalue optimization
Local Time: December 24, 2016 6:19 PM
UTC Time: December 24, 2016 5:19 PM
From: d.s@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: Zsh hackers list <zsh-workers@xxxxxxx>
Sebastian Gniazdowski <psprint@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Bart Schaefer wrote on Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 09:41:48 -0800:
> This and the proposed getstr optimization both make me nervous. I know
> Sebastian is anxious to have them appear in the next release, but it feels
> and if we should have more time using them in dev branches.
I assume we can go ahead now.
Here's a revised patch based on my review upthread:
You then wrote:
"Should this line check that «v->pm->gsu.a.setfn == arrsetfn»?
Should this line check that «pm->ename == NULL» [since arrsetfn()
handles such arrays specially]?"
I think both propositions are good, especially the ename check – activated when parameter is being automatically exported – if I understand correctly. You could fix this by including code activated in the normal setter when ename is not null – like Peter did with string optimization. This way auto-exported arrays will still be optimized.
Best regards,
Sebastian Gniazdowski
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author