On 31 May 2015 at 18:57, Colomban Wendling lists.ban@herbesfolles.org wrote:
Le 31/05/2015 07:41, Lex Trotman a écrit :
On 31 May 2015 at 11:46, Lex Trotman elextr@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 May 2015 at 08:05, Thomas Martitz kugel@rockbox.org wrote:
Am 30.05.2015 um 03:19 schrieb Matthew Brush:
Just because it's such a trivial search algorithm, using strstr() is much more simple and probably more efficient than using Scintilla's API to find text, […]
So its almost certainly slower than strstr().
And on my system strstr() is a builtin that can use any hardware support available.
One thing that will make strstr() sound a lot less sexy is that you probably actually want to find *words* rather than substrings.
Sure you can, just do the strstr() thing then check those for wordiness :)
Meaning
that if the word under the cursor is "i", you probably don't want to highlight all "i"s in e.g. an identifier "highlighting", but only whole words. And while Scintilla search has the logic for this (SCFIND_WHOLEWORD), it'd probably be annoying/redundant to re-do with the same logic.
But yes, as much fun as imagining various premature optimising is, using the existing code first to get it working then optimising *if needed* is the real way to go.
Cheers Lex
Apart that, yes, strstr() from an optimized libc like glibc will be hard to beat without also using very smart optimization combined with use of specialized CPU instruction sets.
Cheers, Colomban _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.geany.org https://lists.geany.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel