On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 12:26 PM, Scott Robison <sc...@casaderobison.com>
wrote:
> 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.
>
The trunk version is still identifying certain sequences as valid. I've
looked at the utf.test file but can't figure out where to put in cases
which should fail. Can anyone give me a pointer on this?
--
Scott Robison
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
