Re: [E-devel] Eina_Binshare and Eina_Stringshare thoughts.

[Tom H. <tom...@pa...>]

On Mon, 2010-07-26 at 12:17 +0800, Brett Nash wrote:
> If I were you I'd do some benchmarks and see what falls out.
> 
> For instance eina_strinshare add has a wacky +3 to the strlen, which
> means the common case of a aligned string gets a hit on architectures
> using sse optimised strlens or 64 bit arches using plain register
> compares. 

Sure, don't worry, benchmarks are planned :P
> 
> > Stringshare can't be used for Binshare (because of the null
> > termination) but, if we give up on the 1 char strings special case,
> > we can save a lot of code duplication.
> 
> That smells like a win to me.  Even better if we have one cache, rather
> the two at run time.
That's what I though doing first (one cache), but then I decided this is
just a hassle and having two (actually more, depending on "share
engine", currently I have stringshare, u(nicode)stringshare and
binshare), whoever wants any should start them. Making the
Unicode/regular differentiation made a lot of sense to me, since both
are (I'm also changing the efl font engine, and textblock/text objects
to use unicode internally) heavily used on their own, the likelihood of
having the same string twice is VERY low. I can change it to one cache
back, but I honestly thinks it makes no sense.
> Just do some benchmarks, if the optimisations are not a gain or small
> gain and get in your way, drop them.
Well, already added them back, I don't trust the small benchmarks I did
enough. I just added them in a clean way ("manual" overrides in the
wrapping functions).

--
Tom.