On 04/07/14 13:41, Dimitry Sibiryakov wrote: > 07.04.2014 9:43, Alex Peshkoff wrote: >> 2 questions. >> 1. Where from did you get an estimation that 3 is enough? >> + static const int MAX_UNDO_RECORDS=3; > Vlad's observation in this thread showed that with current code 2 is > enough. I used 3 > because I'm trying to rework VIO_verb_cleanup() to fix orphan index > nodes/blobs. New > approach will need max 3 simultaneously active undo record buffers. > >> 2. I see later in the code that in worst case MAX_UNDO_RECORDS may be >> overflowed, causing bugcheck. > Do you mean fb_assert(false)? It is just a trap for bugs in calling code. > In release > build it is no-op and the routine will fallback to dynamic buffers causing > bigger memory > consumption but without other negative effects.
In that case I agree. >> Why not use HALF_STATIC_ARRAY here to avoid it? > I was told that this piece of code is time-critical. Half static array > adds unnecessary > overhead. Besides, it will let bugs in calling code to live unspotted. > HalfStaticArray has no overhead as long as it works with statically allocated memory. But does not matter - as long as >3 elements is potential bug there is really no need in it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Put Bad Developers to Shame Dominate Development with Jenkins Continuous Integration Continuously Automate Build, Test & Deployment Start a new project now. Try Jenkins in the cloud. http://p.sf.net/sfu/13600_Cloudbees_APR Firebird-Devel mailing list, web interface at https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-devel
