Re: Replace some cstring_to_text to cstring_to_text_with_len

Em qui., 31 de ago. de 2023 às 10:12, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <
ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org> escreveu:

> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>
> > On 2023-08-31 Th 07:41, John Naylor wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 6:07 PM Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Em qui., 31 de ago. de 2023 às 00:22, Michael Paquier
> >> <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> escreveu:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 03:00:13PM -0300, Ranier Vilela wrote:
> >> >> > cstring_to_text has a small overhead, because call strlen for
> >> >> > pointer to char parameter.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Is it worth the effort to avoid this, where do we know the size
> >> of the
> >> >> > parameter?
> >> >>
> >> >> Are there workloads where this matters?
> >> >
> >> > None, but note this change has the same spirit of 8b26769bc.
> >>
> >> - return cstring_to_text("");
> >> + return cstring_to_text_with_len("", 0);
> >>
> >> This looks worse, so we'd better be getting something in return.
> >
> >
> > I agree this is a bit ugly. I wonder if we'd be better off creating a
> > function that returned an empty text value, so we'd just avoid
> > converting the empty cstring altogether and say:
> >
> > return empty_text();
>
> Or we could generalise it for any string literal (of which there are
> slightly more¹ non-empty than empty in calls to
> cstring_to_text(_with_len)):
>
> #define literal_to_text(str) cstring_to_text_with_len("" str "",
> sizeof(str)-1)
>
I do not agree, I think this will get worse.

best regards,
Ranier Vilela