On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 9:45 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > How about doing something a bit more utf-8-like? > > len = data[0]; > if (len == 0) > error > else if (len < 128) > return len; > else if (len < 192) > return 128 + (len - 128) * 256 + data[1]; > ... that takes you all the way out to 16511 bytes. You probably don't That would save some space and allow us to keep the 0 as an error, yeah. > Alternatively, if the symbols are really this long, perhaps we should not > do string matches. A sha-1 (... or whatever ...) hash of the function > name is 160 bits. Expressed as hex digits, that's 40 characters. > Expressed in base-64, it's 27 characters. We'd also want a "pretty" > name to go along with the hash, but that seems preferable to printing > out a mangled-with-types-and-who-knows-what name. I have seen symbols up to ~300, but I don't think we will ever go up to more than, say, 1024, unless we start to go crazy with generics, namespaces and what not. Hashing could be a nice solution if they really grow, yeah. > If you have C-d-b, you don't also need S-o-b. Hmm... `submitting-patches.rst` keeps the S-o-b in the example they give, is it outdated? Cheers, Miguel
