On 26 August 2015 at 11:18, Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com> wrote: > On 25.08.2015 23:08, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote: >>> All right, so I figured that the difference is that apr_array_make does >>> two allocations compared to one in this code. Still: relying on >>> knowledge of APR implementation details is a really bad idea. >> >> The structure definition of apr_array_header_t is part of >> the public API, i.e. will never change. > > The semantics might, even if the shape of the structure itself doesn't. > >>> As it >>> stands, APR will correctly resize this array if necessary; but there's >>> no guarantee that, sometime in the future, resizing such arrays would >>> fail horribly. >>> >> Even if that was true, the resize is done outside APR as >> well - a few lines further down. > > Indeed it is ... and that code is essentially a copy-paste from > apr_tables.c. > > > I still think this kind of performance hack belongs in APR. Users that > don't have a new-enough APR won't get the performance boost, but on the > other hand, the kind of bug that started this discussion will stay out > of our code. > > I think we've had our fair share of alignment bugs with all the > hand-crafted allocations etc.; we may as well stop now. > +1.
-- Ivan Zhakov
