Hi,
> De : François Laupretre [mailto:franc...@php.net]
> Envoyé : mardi 30 juin 2015 03:08
> À : 'Dmitry Stogov'
> Cc : 'Anatol Belski'; 'PHP Internals'
> Objet : [PHP-DEV] RE: Improved zend_string API
>
> Hi Dmitry,
>
> I just com
Hi Dmitry,
I just commited some additional changes, following your suggestions :
- Renamed every ‘zend_string_xxx()’ functions to ‘ZSTR_’-prefixed uppercase
names,
- Defined compatibility macros for old names
- Changed the rest of the code to use new ZSTR_ names
- A special case for zend_string_
Committed except of ZVAL_STR_INC/DEC_LEN() and some other unused macros.
Thanks. Dmitry.
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 4:23 PM, François Laupretre
wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> OK, I didn’t understand Dmitry’s comment on ‘aggressively’ using inline
> functions but, thanks to your comment, I understand now. It
Hi,
OK, I didn’t understand Dmitry’s comment on ‘aggressively’ using inline
functions but, thanks to your comment, I understand now. It has nothing to do
with performance. Using a function for ->val is useless, I agree, as it is
read-only be nature. But using 2 functions for len provides
re
Hi,
I’ve checked the patch and tested the build, both looks fine.
Though I would go by the suggestion from Dmitry about the new inlined
functions. At least VC produces same ASM, probably gcc would produce good
results as well. However, to operate just on one struct member a function looks
Hi Francois,
>From the source code review, I don't see any problems.
May be too aggressive usage of inline functions in zend_string
implementation, but I hope, it shouldn't make any harm.
I'll need to check, if C compilers are smart enough to produce good
optimized code after inlining.
In general
