On 12/18/2010 06:58 AM, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Hello Pádraig,
>
>> I've rebased the attached memmem reorg patch
>> which splits correctness checks from performance checks.
>
> How about a couple of stylistic changes: use GNU style whitespace placement,
> 'const char *' not 'char *' for string lite
Hello Pádraig,
> I've rebased the attached memmem reorg patch
> which splits correctness checks from performance checks.
How about a couple of stylistic changes: use GNU style whitespace placement,
'const char *' not 'char *' for string literals, and NULL not 0 for the null
pointer, preprocessor
On 12/15/2010 04:48 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 12/15/2010 03:23 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
I spoke too soon. We would also need to patch m4/memmem.m4 to actually
perform the empty needle verification in the memmem-simple case.
>>>
>>> I also noticed the empty needle verification didn't
>>>
On 12/15/2010 03:23 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
>>> I spoke too soon. We would also need to patch m4/memmem.m4 to actually
>>> perform the empty needle verification in the memmem-simple case.
>>
>> I also noticed the empty needle verification didn't
>> check that the correct pointer was returned,
>>
On 23/06/10 01:39, Pádraig Brady wrote:
> On 22/06/10 15:42, Eric Blake wrote:
>> On 06/22/2010 08:41 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
>>> On 06/22/2010 08:34 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
Cool, that's what I expected from the names.
So do we just need to move a docs around a little like:
>>>
>>> Ye
On 22/06/10 15:42, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 06/22/2010 08:41 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
>> On 06/22/2010 08:34 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
>>> Cool, that's what I expected from the names.
>>> So do we just need to move a docs around a little like:
>>>
>>
>> Yes, that looks like an appropriate patch. Please
On 06/22/2010 08:34 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
> Cool, that's what I expected from the names.
> So do we just need to move a docs around a little like:
>
> diff --git a/doc/glibc-functions/memmem.texi b/doc/glibc-functions/memmem.texi
> index c7e3d73..7d34817 100644
> --- a/doc/glibc-functions/memme
On 06/22/2010 08:41 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 06/22/2010 08:34 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
>> Cool, that's what I expected from the names.
>> So do we just need to move a docs around a little like:
>>
>
> Yes, that looks like an appropriate patch. Please apply.
I spoke too soon. We would also nee
On 22/06/10 15:09, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 06/22/2010 03:18 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
>>
>> Note the docs for "memmem" say it fixes
>>
>> "This function returns incorrect values in some cases, such as when
>>given an empty needle: glibc <= 2.0, Cygwin 1.5.x."
>>
>> Could that functionality be r
On 06/22/2010 03:18 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
>> http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11607
>
> Coincidentally, I was about to mail you about this :)
> Thanks for pointing out that bug which I was unaware of.
>
> I'm currently working on multibyte enhancements to coreutils
> and was usin
On 22/06/10 00:30, Eric Blake wrote:
> Meanwhile, glibc bug 11607 already complains that the time spent on
> factorization is extremely noticeable for short strings. I have not
> benchmarked things myself (partly because I don't know how cache-line
> effects would play into a benchmark), but do w
On 06/21/2010 05:30 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> starting with a comparison of x[0] and x[1]), we can instead start with
> only reduced-length suffixes (that is, start with a comparison of x[1]
> and x[2]), for one less comparison, and a slightly faster factorization
> time.
Followup - the number of co
[adding bug-gnulib]
On 06/20/2010 10:00 PM, Carlos wrote:
> Howdy -- I'm writing an article for Code Quarterly on pattern
> matching, featuring the Two-Way algorithm, which you added
> to libc and gnulib a couple of years back.
>
> There is one result of the critical factorization phase I haven't
13 matches
Mail list logo
