On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 12:50 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> While it is true that strbuf_remove(&sb, sb.len - trim, trim) is
> equivalent to strbuf_setlen(&sb, sb.len - trim), I wonder why we see
> any memcpy() in the first place.
>
> strbuf_remove(&sb, sb.len - trim, trim) is turned into
> strbuf_s
Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy writes:
> perf reports memcpy at the the 6th position [1] in "git status -uno"
> using index v4, and strbuf_remove() in expand_name_field() accounts
> for 25% of that. What we need here is a simple string cut and a
> cheaper strbuf_setlen() should be enough.
While it is tru
perf reports memcpy at the the 6th position [1] in "git status -uno"
using index v4, and strbuf_remove() in expand_name_field() accounts
for 25% of that. What we need here is a simple string cut and a
cheaper strbuf_setlen() should be enough. After this change, memcpy
drops down to the 13th positio
3 matches
Mail list logo
