Em qui., 31 de ago. de 2023 às 10:12, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker < ilm...@ilmari.org> escreveu:
> Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> writes: > > > On 2023-08-31 Th 07:41, John Naylor wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 6:07 PM Ranier Vilela <ranier...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > > >> > Em qui., 31 de ago. de 2023 às 00:22, Michael Paquier > >> <mich...@paquier.xyz> escreveu: > >> >> > >> >> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 03:00:13PM -0300, Ranier Vilela wrote: > >> >> > cstring_to_text has a small overhead, because call strlen for > >> >> > pointer to char parameter. > >> >> > > >> >> > Is it worth the effort to avoid this, where do we know the size > >> of the > >> >> > parameter? > >> >> > >> >> Are there workloads where this matters? > >> > > >> > None, but note this change has the same spirit of 8b26769bc. > >> > >> - return cstring_to_text(""); > >> + return cstring_to_text_with_len("", 0); > >> > >> This looks worse, so we'd better be getting something in return. > > > > > > I agree this is a bit ugly. I wonder if we'd be better off creating a > > function that returned an empty text value, so we'd just avoid > > converting the empty cstring altogether and say: > > > > return empty_text(); > > Or we could generalise it for any string literal (of which there are > slightly more¹ non-empty than empty in calls to > cstring_to_text(_with_len)): > > #define literal_to_text(str) cstring_to_text_with_len("" str "", > sizeof(str)-1) > I do not agree, I think this will get worse. best regards, Ranier Vilela