On Jun 10, 2016 6:04 AM, "Jan Nijtmans" <jan.nijtm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 2016-06-10 10:12 GMT+02:00 Scott Robison:
> > FYI, my test code here (C++ harness) consisted of passing every possible
> > four byte buffer to the old function and my new function. My function
> > identifies the expected number of "strings" as valid UTF-8. I didn't
eyeball
> > each one to make sure the right ones got through, but getting the exact
> > right number is promising to me.
> >
> > Let me know if you see anything horridly wrong with my code. It's 2am...
>
> It turns out that your code appears fine, it's just less efficient than
mine ;-)
You are correct. I was going for correct and readable over fast and wrong.
{hides}
> There were test-failures but all failures turned out to be errors in the
> expected test-outcome. I fixed those test-cases now, added more of
> them, and fixed the invalid_utf8() function in trunk. Now all tests pass
> with both trunk code and your code.
>
> Many thanks, Scott ! Once more, fossil got better than it was!
Glad it's working. I'm all for faster correct code, too. I had run both
implementations through the profiler last night and knew my code was a few
percent slower, but figured optimization would narrow the gap when I was
alert enough to do more good.
I'll take the current code and run it through my ugly test harness and make
sure it prints the right numbers in a bit.
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
