Re: RFC: New diff-delta.c implementation

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On Apr 22, 2006, at 13:03, Junio C Hamano wrote:
What is the exact role of the max_size parameter that
is passed to diff_delta? I took it to mean return 0 if
the size of the delta would be bigger than max_size and
max_size is nonzero.

No, that is a _strong_ hint to tell diff_delta to quit
early without wasting cycles if the result exceeds the
given size, either because we already have a delta smaller
than that, or because we expect to get an undeltified
representation compressed down to that size.  So if
your algorithm cannot notice early stage of the processing
if the result would exceed that max_size, just code things
to ignore it first.

That's about how I implemented it in my last patch.
Is it correct that 0 means that there is no max_size?
Should I set *delta_size to 0 when doing an early
return, or leave it alone?

Note that this really is a micro-optimization, since
all the expensive stuff is the indexing and then the
matching. Since my algorithm matches both forward and
backward, there is no way to know that the patch size
can't be optimized until after matching completes,
even though it will never actually create the patch
or allocate memory for it.

  -Geert
-
: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]