Stefan Fuhrmann wrote: > Julian Foad wrote: >> In svn.apache.org/r1395434 and svn.apache.org/r1483310, you optimised >> svn_rangelist_dup(). >> >> An svn_rangelist_t is an APR array of pointers to small simple objects. >> >> I guessed we would have other places where we want to duplicate an >> array of pointers to simple objects, but I guessed wrong and >> can't find any. Nevertheless, how about we factor out the generic >> array-duplication code like this, in order to maintain a clear >> separation between rangelist code and generic array code? I think >> that makes it easier for a reader to see that there's nothing special >> happening there that concerns rangelists specifically. > > Yes, that makes sense. > >> I have at the back of my mind that this function could very well be >> proposed for inclusion in APR, but I am not presently thinking of doing so. > > It is still a rather specific application (copy depth == 1). > APR would probably want something with copy callbacks, > which would defeat the purpose of the whole exercise. > >> Of course, parameterizing the 'object size' like this may make it >> slightly slower. I don't imagine it would be significant but haven't >> measured it. Does that bother you in this case? > > I looked at the generated code and it is basically identical > to what we get without the patch - thanks to the constant > propagation in higher optimization levels.
[...] > Committed as r1570904. Thanks! - Julian
