Re: on memory usage with the 64bit patch, and interpretation of various numbers
Am 16.05.2014 05:31, schrieb Pierre Joye:
> Hi Stas,
>
> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:03 AM, Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com> wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>>> ### It's The Correct Data Type
>>>
>>> The C89 spec indicates in 3.3.3.4 (
>>> http://port70.net/~nsz/c/c89/rationale/c3.html#size-95t-3-3-3-4
>>> ) that
>>> the size_t type was created specifically for usage in this context. It
>>> is always, 100% guaranteed to be able to hold the bounds of every
>>> possible array element. Strings in C are simply char arrays.
>>
>> Here is my problem with it - we don't need a type that allows to hold
>> the bounds of every possible array element. It's like buying a house
>> that could contain all your relatives, acquaintances, friends and people
>> that you have ever met if they would decide to come to you to stay all
>> at once.
>> Too expensive and very impractical. We're using unified string
>> sizes now, and 99% of the strings we're using never even reach limits of
>> 16 bits, let alone come close to limits of int. Carrying around a 64-bit
>> value to store that is just waste. We'd be just storing megabytes of
>> zeroes without any use. Whatever theoretical reasons there are for
>> generic application to use that, they hardly can be applied to very
>> specialized and supposed to be highly optimized case as the language
>> engine is. It's a fine argument in the generic case, but we do not have
>> the generic case here.
>
>
> I wonder if one actually reads it correctly and other replies, but let
> me say it again.
>
> It is a side effect not a goal, at all.
Assuming unified behaviour is the #1 goal, the lowest common denominator
could be used instead of the largest. The latter obviously has
undesired side effects.
Ulf
Thread (10 messages)