On 23 October 2015, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> On 23 October 2015, Julian Foad wrote:
>> 1. The doc string should explain len_hint in the caller's terms. The
>> doc strings also differ in other unnecessary respects. I propose the
>> attached documentation patch.
>>
> I agree. Patch look great!
Thanks.
On 23 October 2015 at 13:13, Julian Foad wrote:
> On 22 October 2015, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>> On 19 October 2015, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>>> [[[
>>> Revv svn_string_from_stream() function and share implementation with
>>> svn_stringbuf_from_stream().
>>>
>>> Suggested by: julianf
> [...]
>>> ]]]
>>>
>>
On 22 October 2015, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> On 19 October 2015, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>> [[[
>> Revv svn_string_from_stream() function and share implementation with
>> svn_stringbuf_from_stream().
>>
>> Suggested by: julianf
[...]
>> ]]]
>>
> Committed in r1710065.
>
>> [[[
>> * subversion/libsvn_subr/st
On 19 October 2015 at 19:22, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> On 7 October 2015 at 18:10, Julian Foad wrote:
>> Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
>>> Julian Foad wrote:
Stefan: First review comment: You can much more efficiently convert a
stringbuf to a string (when you own it, like here) using
svn_strin
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> On 20 October 2015 at 12:23, Stefan Fuhrmann
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 6:22 PM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> >>
> >> On 7 October 2015 at 18:10, Julian Foad wrote:
> >> > Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
> >> >> Julian Foad wrote:
> >> >>> Stefan
On 20 October 2015 at 12:23, Stefan Fuhrmann
wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 6:22 PM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>>
>> On 7 October 2015 at 18:10, Julian Foad wrote:
>> > Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
>> >> Julian Foad wrote:
>> >>> Stefan: First review comment: You can much more efficiently convert a
>> >>>
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 6:22 PM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> On 7 October 2015 at 18:10, Julian Foad wrote:
> > Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
> >> Julian Foad wrote:
> >>> Stefan: First review comment: You can much more efficiently convert a
> >>> stringbuf to a string (when you own it, like here) using
> >>>
On 7 October 2015 at 18:10, Julian Foad wrote:
> Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
>> Julian Foad wrote:
>>> Stefan: First review comment: You can much more efficiently convert a
>>> stringbuf to a string (when you own it, like here) using
>>> svn_stringbuf__morph_into_string().
>>
>> We could only do that i
On 7 October 2015 at 18:10, Julian Foad wrote:
> Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
>> Julian Foad wrote:
>>> Stefan: First review comment: You can much more efficiently convert a
>>> stringbuf to a string (when you own it, like here) using
>>> svn_stringbuf__morph_into_string().
>>
>> We could only do that i
Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
> Julian Foad wrote:
>> Stefan: First review comment: You can much more efficiently convert a
>> stringbuf to a string (when you own it, like here) using
>> svn_stringbuf__morph_into_string().
>
> We could only do that if the stringbuf was allocated in
> the result_pool. The
Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> Julian Foad wrote:
>> Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>>> Thanks for pointing to svn_string_from_stream(), but this function
>>> slightly different: it has SCRATCH_POOL argument and doesn't have
>>> LEN_HINT argument. It's little difference in semantic.
>>
>> Yes, it is slightly different.
On 7 October 2015 at 16:50, Julian Foad wrote:
> Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>> Thanks for pointing to svn_string_from_stream(), but this function
>> slightly different: it has SCRATCH_POOL argument and doesn't have
>> LEN_HINT argument. It's little difference in semantic.
>
> Yes, it is slightly different
Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> Thanks for pointing to svn_string_from_stream(), but this function
> slightly different: it has SCRATCH_POOL argument and doesn't have
> LEN_HINT argument. It's little difference in semantic.
Yes, it is slightly different. That doesn't justify it having a
completely different
On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:21 PM, Julian Foad wrote:
> >>> Julian Foad wrote:
> [...] I will be
> interested in reviewing the (single) implementation.
>
> Stefan wrote:
> > [...] Here the final version.
> > If that doesn't work either then I'm done for today.
>
> Stefan: First review comm
On 7 October 2015 at 16:21, Julian Foad wrote:
Julian Foad wrote:
> [...] I will be
> interested in reviewing the (single) implementation.
>
> Stefan wrote:
>> [...] Here the final version.
>> If that doesn't work either then I'm done for today.
>
> Stefan: First review comment: You c
>>> Julian Foad wrote:
[...] I will be
interested in reviewing the (single) implementation.
Stefan wrote:
> [...] Here the final version.
> If that doesn't work either then I'm done for today.
Stefan: First review comment: You can much more efficiently convert a
stringbuf to a string (w
On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 3:02 PM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> On 7 October 2015 at 15:57, Stefan Fuhrmann
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Julian Foad
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Stefan wrote:
> >> > I guess the correct way of doing this is revert Ivan's
> >> > change and apply something like the att
On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Stefan Fuhrmann <
stefan.fuhrm...@wandisco.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Julian Foad wrote:
>
>> Stefan wrote:
>> > I guess the correct way of doing this is revert Ivan's
>> > change and apply something like the attached patch.
>> Ivan wrote:
>> > H
On 7 October 2015 at 15:57, Stefan Fuhrmann
wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Julian Foad wrote:
>>
>> Stefan wrote:
>> > I guess the correct way of doing this is revert Ivan's
>> > change and apply something like the attached patch.
>> Ivan wrote:
>> > Here is the patch that I wanted comm
On 7 October 2015 at 15:47, Julian Foad wrote:
> Stefan wrote:
>> I guess the correct way of doing this is revert Ivan's
>> change and apply something like the attached patch.
> Ivan wrote:
>> Here is the patch that I wanted commit later. What do you think?
>
> I am not interested in reviewing any
On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Julian Foad wrote:
> Stefan wrote:
> > I guess the correct way of doing this is revert Ivan's
> > change and apply something like the attached patch.
> Ivan wrote:
> > Here is the patch that I wanted commit later. What do you think?
>
> I am not interested in revie
Stefan wrote:
> I guess the correct way of doing this is revert Ivan's
> change and apply something like the attached patch.
Ivan wrote:
> Here is the patch that I wanted commit later. What do you think?
I am not interested in reviewing any more patches that tweak just one
of the implementations.
On 7 October 2015 at 15:21, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> On 7 October 2015 at 14:53, Julian Foad wrote:
>> Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>>> Bert Huijben wrote:
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1707196&view=rev
> Log:
> Slightly optimize svn_stringbuf_from_stream() to avoid allocating twice
>
On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 1:53 PM, Julian Foad wrote:
> Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> > Bert Huijben wrote:
> >>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1707196&view=rev
> >>> Log:
> >>> Slightly optimize svn_stringbuf_from_stream() to avoid allocating twice
> >>> more memory and unnecessary memcpy() when LEN
On 7 October 2015 at 14:53, Julian Foad wrote:
> Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>> Bert Huijben wrote:
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1707196&view=rev
Log:
Slightly optimize svn_stringbuf_from_stream() to avoid allocating twice
more memory and unnecessary memcpy() when LEN_HINT is e
Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> Bert Huijben wrote:
>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1707196&view=rev
>>> Log:
>>> Slightly optimize svn_stringbuf_from_stream() to avoid allocating twice
>>> more memory and unnecessary memcpy() when LEN_HINT is equal to final
>>> stringbuf
>>> length.
>>>
>>> * subve
On 7 October 2015 at 14:08, Bert Huijben wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: i...@apache.org [mailto:i...@apache.org]
>> Sent: woensdag 7 oktober 2015 09:57
>> To: comm...@subversion.apache.org
>> Subject: svn commit: r1707196 -
>> /subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_subr/stream.c
>>
>>
> -Original Message-
> From: i...@apache.org [mailto:i...@apache.org]
> Sent: woensdag 7 oktober 2015 09:57
> To: comm...@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: svn commit: r1707196 -
> /subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_subr/stream.c
>
> Author: ivan
> Date: Wed Oct 7 07:57:05 2015
> New Re
28 matches
Mail list logo
