From: René Scharfe <rene.scharfe@lsrfire.ath.cx>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 05:41:37 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/13] strbuf: add strbuf_add*_urlencode
Message-ID: <4ED5C211.6040401@lsrfire.ath.cx>
In-Reply-To: <20111130032028.GA24704@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Am 30.11.2011 04:20, schrieb Jeff King:
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 12:26:20AM +0100, René Scharfe wrote:
> 
>>>>> +static int is_rfc3986_reserved(char ch)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +	switch (ch) {
>>>>> +	case '!': case '*': case '\'': case '(': case ')': case ';':
>>>>> +	case ':': case '@': case '&': case '=': case '+': case '$':
>>>>> +	case ',': case '/': case '?': case '#': case '[': case ']':
>>>>> +		return 1;
>>>>> +	}
>> [...]
>> Sorry for my bikeshedding, but I'd paint it like this:
>>
>> 	return !!strchr("!*'();:@&=+$,/?#[]", ch);
> 
> I was always under the impression that computed jumps via "switch" would
> out-perform even an optimized strchr. Of course, I never tested. And I
> doubt performance is even relevant here, and I admit I don't care overly
> much. I find them both equally readable.
> 
> I'm going to leave it as-is unless somebody else wants to say "I
> strongly prefer version X".

Sure, the second one is significantly slower than the first one.  I just
prefer it based one its looks in case performance doesn't matter, but
that's probably just me being (sometimes too) fond of terseness. :)

René