[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180124222506.vrr6vmi5pbsxojvb@sinister.lan.codevat.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 14:25:06 -0800
From: Eric Pruitt <eric.pruitt@...il.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Updating Unicode support
On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 04:48:53PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
> > 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.
That was intentional. I have no clue what the common case is for other
people that use musl, but most applications **I** use make use of
various parts of musl, so I did the comparison on the library as a
whole.
Eric
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.
