On 11/11/2016 01:30 AM, Kinkie wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 5:02 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
>> On 11/11/2016 9:28 a.m., Kinkie wrote:
>>>
>>> v4 attached.
>>>
>>
>> Does it have to take begin() and end() iterators explicitly?
>> can we not have it take the container
On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 5:02 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> On 11/11/2016 9:28 a.m., Kinkie wrote:
>>
>> v4 attached.
>>
>
> Does it have to take begin() and end() iterators explicitly?
> can we not have it take the container itself and use a for(auto :
> container) loop ?
No
On 11/11/2016 9:28 a.m., Kinkie wrote:
>
> v4 attached.
>
Does it have to take begin() and end() iterators explicitly?
can we not have it take the container itself and use a for(auto :
container) loop ?
Amos
___
squid-dev mailing list
> Tests and code analysis show that JoinContainerIntoSBuf() allocates when
> no allocation is needed. I have also shown that it is possible to
> implement JoinContainerIntoSBuf() so that there is no extra allocation.
> AFAICT, going forward, you choices are:
>
> * state that the extra allocation
On 11/06/2016 01:15 AM, Kinkie wrote:
>>> +dest.reserveSpace(prefix.length() + totalContainerSize +
>>> suffix.length());
>>
>> Please note that v4 still allocates memory according to my last
>> experiment. See JoinContainerIntoSBuf3() which mimics your patch v4. You
>> may claim that the
>> +dest.reserveSpace(prefix.length() + totalContainerSize +
>> suffix.length());
>
> Please note that v4 still allocates memory according to my last
> experiment. See JoinContainerIntoSBuf3() which mimics your patch v4. You
> may claim that the unnecessary allocation is not the fault of this
On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 6:12 PM, Alex Rousskov
wrote:
> On 11/04/2016 01:12 AM, Kinkie wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 10:55 PM, Alex Rousskov
>> wrote:
>>> On 11/03/2016 03:19 PM, Kinkie wrote:
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 8:47
On 11/04/2016 01:12 AM, Kinkie wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 10:55 PM, Alex Rousskov
> wrote:
>> On 11/03/2016 03:19 PM, Kinkie wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 8:47 PM, Alex Rousskov wrote:
On 11/01/2016 02:02 PM, Kinkie wrote:
> the attached patch
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 10:55 PM, Alex Rousskov
wrote:
> On 11/03/2016 03:19 PM, Kinkie wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 8:47 PM, Alex Rousskov wrote:
>>> On 11/01/2016 02:02 PM, Kinkie wrote:
the attached patch extends SBufContainerJoin to have prefix and
On 11/03/2016 03:19 PM, Kinkie wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 8:47 PM, Alex Rousskov wrote:
>> On 11/01/2016 02:02 PM, Kinkie wrote:
>>> the attached patch extends SBufContainerJoin to have prefix and
>>> suffix arguments.
>> I recommend reworking this by adding a dest parameter:
>> SBuf
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 8:47 PM, Alex Rousskov
wrote:
> On 11/01/2016 02:02 PM, Kinkie wrote:
>> the attached patch extends SBufContainerJoin to have prefix and
>> suffix arguments. This can support a use-case which I found in the
>> current ACLRegexData work
On 11/01/2016 02:02 PM, Kinkie wrote:
> the attached patch extends SBufContainerJoin to have prefix and
> suffix arguments. This can support a use-case which I found in the
> current ACLRegexData work I'm following, where we need to transform
> {"foo", "bar", "gazonk"}
> into
>
Hi all,
the attached patch extends SBufContainerJoin to have prefix and
suffix arguments. This can support a use-case which I found in the
current ACLRegexData work I'm following, where we need to transform
{"foo", "bar", "gazonk"}
into
(foo)|(bar)|(gazonk)
It can be done with the current
13 matches
Mail list logo