Sean: The Google-internal version of this function wouldn't work for you because we actually use an alternate (non-COW) string class. Also, our resize function violates aliasing rules, which may be a problem if you don't use -fno-strict-aliasing.
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Jason Hsueh <jas...@google.com> wrote: > I don't know about any other implementations, but a word of caution: I > think that this would be especially complicated/hacky for gcc 4.3, which as > I recall switched to a copy-on-write implementation for std::string. You'd > probably want to make sure that the performance difference is really worth > it. Actually GCC introduced a COW string implementation I think in version 3. Last I heard they were planning to switch back, since it turns out COW strings are actually slower in common practice. Maybe 4.3 was when they switched back to non-COW? > > > On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 9:25 AM, Sean Rhea <sean.c.r...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> All, >> >> Does anyone have an implementation of STLStringResizeUninitialized >> (see stl_util-inl.h) for gcc version 4.3.2? >> >> The inability to use std::string as a zero-copy buffer has been a >> long-running annoyance of mine, and I'm really excited by the >> string_as_array function provided in stl_util-inl.h. Unfortunately, >> it isn't worth as much without STLStringResizeUninitialized, since you >> still end-up zero-filling the array (via resize) before writing into >> it. >> >> I understand why Google wouldn't want to include their version by >> default, as until the standard catches up it will by necessity be an >> ugly hack, but it would be great to have an implementation for my own >> use. >> >> As far as I can tell, vector<char> suffers from the same problem (no >> way to resize without zero-filling the array). >> >> Sean >> -- >> "I refuse to accept the idea that the ‘isness’ of man’s present nature >> makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal ‘oughtness’ >> that forever confronts him." --MLK >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Protocol Buffers" group. >> To post to this group, send email to proto...@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<protobuf%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> >> . >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en. >> >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Protocol Buffers" group. > To post to this group, send email to proto...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<protobuf%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Protocol Buffers" group. To post to this group, send email to proto...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en.
