Re: diff-optimizations-tokens branch: I think I'm going to abandon it

On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 9:59 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > Johan Corveleyn wrote on Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 21:21:20 +0100: >> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Bill Tutt wrote: >> >    If tokens include keyword expansion operations then stop once you >> > hit one. The possible source of bugs outways the

Re: diff-optimizations-tokens branch: I think I'm going to abandon it

On 02.12.2010 21:21, Johan Corveleyn wrote: > On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Bill Tutt wrote: >> Additional ignore whitespace related comment: >> * IIRC, Perforce had an interesting twist on ignoring whitespace. You >> could ignore just line leading/ending whitespace instead of all >> whitespace

Re: diff-optimizations-tokens branch: I think I'm going to abandon it

Johan Corveleyn wrote on Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 21:21:20 +0100: > On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Bill Tutt wrote: > >    If tokens include keyword expansion operations then stop once you > > hit one. The possible source of bugs outways the perf gain in my mind > > here. > > Haven't thought about k

Re: diff-optimizations-tokens branch: I think I'm going to abandon it

On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Bill Tutt wrote: > Note: This email only tangentially relates to svn diff and more about > reverse token scanning in general: > > As someone who has implemented suffix reverse token scanning before: Thanks for the input. It's nice to see other people have also stru

Re: diff-optimizations-tokens branch: I think I'm going to abandon it

On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 4:21 PM, Julian Foad wrote: > Hi Johan. > > I've just read the whole of this thread. > > I didn't quite understand your original point (2) that "token-based > suffix scanning will not be as fast as byte-based suffix scanning". > Sure it won't, but is there any reason you men

Re: diff-optimizations-tokens branch: I think I'm going to abandon it

On 12/02/2010 12:18 PM, Bill Tutt wrote: [...] . o O ( Who the heck is this Bill Tutt guy? ) Nice to read you again, Bill! -- C. Michael Pilato CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: diff-optimizations-tokens branch: I think I'm going to abandon it

Note: This email only tangentially relates to svn diff and more about reverse token scanning in general: As someone who has implemented suffix reverse token scanning before: * It simply isn't possible in DBCS code pages. Stick to byte only here.    SBCS and UTF-16 make reverse token stuff relativ

Re: diff-optimizations-tokens branch: I think I'm going to abandon it

Hi Johan. I've just read the whole of this thread. I didn't quite understand your original point (2) that "token-based suffix scanning will not be as fast as byte-based suffix scanning". Sure it won't, but is there any reason you mentioned suffix scanning there specifically? The same is true of

Re: diff-optimizations-tokens branch: I think I'm going to abandon it

Johan Corveleyn wrote on Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 14:59:23 +0100: > On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 6:43 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > > Johan Corveleyn wrote on Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 13:34:48 +0100: > >> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Daniel Shahaf > >> wrote: > >> > Johan Corveleyn wrote on Wed, Dec 01, 2010

Re: diff-optimizations-tokens branch: I think I'm going to abandon it

On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 6:43 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > [ finally getting back to this mail; having slept on it, etc. ] > > Johan Corveleyn wrote on Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 13:34:48 +0100: >> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Daniel Shahaf >> wrote: >> > Johan Corveleyn wrote on Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at

Re: diff-optimizations-tokens branch: I think I'm going to abandon it

[ finally getting back to this mail; having slept on it, etc. ] Johan Corveleyn wrote on Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 13:34:48 +0100: > On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Daniel Shahaf > wrote: > > Johan Corveleyn wrote on Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 10:05:29 +0100: > >> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 3:38 AM, Daniel Sh

Re: diff-optimizations-tokens branch: I think I'm going to abandon it

On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > Johan Corveleyn wrote on Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 10:05:29 +0100: >> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 3:38 AM, Daniel Shahaf >> wrote: >> > Johan Corveleyn wrote on Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 00:25:27 +0100: >> >> I am now considering to abandon the tokens-app

Re: diff-optimizations-tokens branch: I think I'm going to abandon it

Johan Corveleyn wrote on Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 10:05:29 +0100: > On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 3:38 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > > Johan Corveleyn wrote on Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 00:25:27 +0100: > >> I am now considering to abandon the tokens-approach, for the following > >> reasons: > > ... > >> So, unless

Re: diff-optimizations-tokens branch: I think I'm going to abandon it

On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 3:38 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > Johan Corveleyn wrote on Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 00:25:27 +0100: >> I am now considering to abandon the tokens-approach, for the following >> reasons: > ... >> So, unless someone can convince me otherwise, I'm probably going to >> stop with the

Re: diff-optimizations-tokens branch: I think I'm going to abandon it

Johan Corveleyn wrote on Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 00:25:27 +0100: > I am now considering to abandon the tokens-approach, for the following > reasons: ... > So, unless someone can convince me otherwise, I'm probably going to > stop with the token approach. Because of 2), I don't think it's worth > it t

diff-optimizations-tokens branch: I think I'm going to abandon it

Hi devs, As mentioned in [1], I've created two branches to try out two different approaches for the diff optimizations of prefix/suffix scanning. The first one, diff-optimizations-bytes, has a working implementation of the optimization. It still has some open todo items, but it basically works.