Re: [RFC] Time to talk about StringNG merge again?

On 2/04/2013 6:57 a.m., Alex Rousskov wrote:
> -- This is not a review, but I wanted to clarify or emphasize some of
> the points in Amos' review. Thank you Amos for working on this!
>
>
> On 03/30/2013 02:32 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
>> in src/SBuf.cc:
>>
>> * SBuf::chop() - the TODO optimization is not possible. We cannot be
>> completely sure we are teh only user of the
> I think it is possible, but the MemBlob cooperation would be required to
> ensure correctness.
>
>
>> * SBuf::operator []() documentation is incorrect. It *does* check access
>> bounds, but returns \0 for any bytes outside instead of throwing exception.
> The documentation is correct. The implementation is no longer correct.
> Please revert to the recent code version that did none of the above. The
> [] operator is meant for performance-sensitive loops and should not do
> any checks. Even the stats collection should be removed from it IMO. We
> provide at() that trades speed for safety. std::string does the same.
>
>
>
>> in src/SBuf.cci
> BTW, IIRC, we discussed moving all .cci stuff into .h. Or was that a
> different project?

We had. However since it was not done yet I reviewed in-place.

Kinkie; I have a little time in the next few hours to try my hand at
this as a test of the shared-access branch.

>
>> * Sbuf::bufEnd() is lacking any checks about whether the space returned
>> is safe to use, no cow() or whatever.
> bufEnd() is a private convenience method. It is unsafe and non-cowing by
> design. The callers should check and cow, as needed. If the
> documentation does not reflect that, it should be fixed.
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> Alex.
>
Received on Tue Apr 02 2013 - 03:02:09 MDT