John Darrington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It seems that spss formats a 2551 byte string as 10 consecutive > 255-byte strings followed by a 103 byte string with the last 102 bytes > empty. > Or in general a N byte string (where N > 255) is formated as > (N div 252) consecutive 255 byte strings followed by a 8xsup(N - (N div > 252)x255/8) byte string (God knows why!). > When reading we just have to assume that there'll be "a number" of 255 > byte strings, followed by a string <= 255 bytes in length.
That is truly bizarre. I will have to do some thinking about why it would do anything so zany. What do you mean by "xsup"? > In both cases we'd also need to add something like > "w->has_very_long_strings" to the conditions to take the slow > path. > > OK. I think that's where I came into problems. I was trying to > ensure that the fast path would always be taken. Maybe that was a > misguided goal. I don't think it's a worthwhile thing to try to optimize that little bit of code, especially if it inconveniences other code. > I'm not sure about the comments you made about AGGREGATE. Can you > provide a test case which fails. Then I can check it in as a > regression test. On second thought I'm not sure whether AGGREGATE is affected. It does support long strings, though. I'll see. -- Ben Pfaff email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://benpfaff.org _______________________________________________ pspp-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pspp-dev
