[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 16:48:53 -0500
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Updating Unicode support
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 10:26:02PM -0800, Eric Pruitt wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 04:51:33PM -0800, Eric Pruitt wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 06:38:57PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
> > > OK. With this in mind, I hope you're also aware that musl's Unicode
> > > tables are all highly optimized for size and (aside from case mapping)
> > > very good speed relative to their size, and are generated mechanically
> > > from the UCD files via some ugly code here:
> > >
> > > https://github.com/richfelker/musl-chartable-tools
>
> I updated my copy of musl to 1.1.18 then recompiled it with and without
> my utf8proc changes using GCC 6.3.0 "-O3" targeting Linux 4.9.0 /
> x86_64:
>
> - Original implementation: 2,762,774B (musl-1.1.18/lib/libc.a)
> - utf8proc implementation: 3,055,954B (musl-1.1.18/lib/libc.a)
> - The utf8proc implementation is ~11% larger. I didn't do any
> performance comparisons.
You're comparing the whole library, not character tables. If you
compare against all of ctype, it's a 15x size increase. If you compare
against just wcwidth, it's a 69x increase.
Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
