On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 1:50 PM Jacob Champion <pchamp...@vmware.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2021-08-20 at 13:05 -0400, John Naylor wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 8:05 PM Jacob Champion <pchamp...@vmware.com>
wrote:
> > > I guess it just depends on what the end result looks/performs like.
> > > We'd save seven hops or so in the worst case?
> >
> > Something like that. Attached is what I had in mind (using real
> > patches to see what the CF bot thinks):
> >
> > 0001 is a simple renaming
> > 0002 puts the char width inside the mbinterval so we can put arbitrary
values there
>
> 0002 introduces a mixed declarations/statements warning for
> ucs_wcwidth(). Other than that, LGTM overall.
I didn't see that warning with clang 12, either with or without assertions,
but I do see it on gcc 11. Fixed, and pushed 0001 and 0002. I decided
against squashing them, since my original instinct was correct -- the
header changes too much for git to consider it the same file, which may
make archeology harder.
> > --- a/src/common/wchar.c
> > +++ b/src/common/wchar.c
> > @@ -583,9 +583,9 @@ pg_utf_mblen(const unsigned char *s)
> >
> > struct mbinterval
> > {
> > - unsigned short first;
> > - unsigned short last;
> > - signed short width;
> > + unsigned int first;
> > + unsigned int last:21;
> > + signed int width:4;
> > };
>
> Oh, right -- my patch moved mbinterval from short to int, but should I
> have used uint32 instead? It would only matter in theory for the
> `first` member now that the bitfields are there.
I'm not sure it would matter, but the usual type for codepoints is unsigned.
> > I think the adjustments to 0003 result in a cleaner and more
> > extensible design, but a case could be made otherwise. The former
> > combining table script is a bit more complex than the sum of its
> > former self and Jacob's proposed new script, but just slightly.
>
> The microbenchmark says it's also more performant, so +1 to your
> version.
>
> Does there need to be any sanity check for overlapping ranges between
> the combining and fullwidth sets? The Unicode data on a dev's machine
> would have to be broken somehow for that to happen, but it could
> potentially go undetected for a while if it did.
Thanks for testing again! The sanity check sounds like a good idea, so I'll
work on that and push soon.
--
John Naylor
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
