Patch 100899 [Unicode compression] (was RE: [Python-Dev] 2.0 Release Plans) (original) (raw)

M.-A. Lemburg mal@lemburg.com
Thu, 24 Aug 2000 13:37:28 +0200

Thomas Wouters wrote:

On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 02:32:20PM -0400, Tim Peters wrote: > [Jeremy Hylton] > > I would like to see some compression in the release, but agree that it > > is not an essential optimization. People have talked about it for a > > couple of months, and we haven't found someone to work on it because > > at various times pirx and /F said they were working on it. > > > > If we don't hear from /F by tomorrow promising he will finish it before > > the beta release, let's postpone it. > There was an awful lot of whining about the size increase without this > optimization, and the current situation violates the "no compiler warnings!" > rule too (at least under MSVC 6). For the record, you can't compile unicodedatabase.c with g++ because of it's size: g++ complains that the switch is too large to compile. Under gcc it compiles, but only by trying really really hard, and I don't know how it performs under other versions of gcc (in particular more heavily optimizing ones -- might run into other limits in those situations.)

Are you sure this is still true with the latest CVS tree version ?

I split the unicodedatabase.c static array into chunks of 4096 entries each -- that should really be managable by all compilers.

But perhaps you are talking about the switch in unicodectype.c (there are no large switches in unicodedatabase.c) ? In that case, Jack Janssen has added a macro switch which breaks that switch in multiple parts too (see the top of that file).

It should be no problem adding a few more platforms to the list of platforms which have this switch defined per default (currently Macs and MS Win64).

I see no problem taking the load off of Fredrik an postponing the patch to 2.1.

-- Marc-Andre Lemburg

Business: http://www.lemburg.com/ Python Pages: http://www.lemburg.com/python/