From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,64b29dfa2220a59f
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Maciej Sobczak <see.my.homepage@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Reserve_Capacity for Unbounded_String?
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 12:29:00 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <1185218940.794004.249540@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>
References: <1185134043.892012.217560@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
   <wccmyxorup5.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 85.0.251.175
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1185218940 20496 127.0.0.1 (23 Jul 2007 19:29:00
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 19:29:00 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <wccmyxorup5.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; en-US;
 rv:1.8.1.5) Gecko/20070713 Firefox/2.0.0.5,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: 57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com; posting-host=85.0.251.175;
   posting-account=ps2QrAMAAAA6_jCuRt2JEIpn5Otqf_w0
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:16565
Date: 2007-07-23T12:29:00-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 22 Lip, 23:32, Robert A Duff <bobd...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:

> > Why there is no Reserve_Capacity for Unbounded_String?
>
> Probably for historical reasons.

Would introducing it break any existing code?

> > declare
> >    S : Unbounded_String;
> >    My_Capacity : constant := 1000;
> > begin
> >    S := To_Unbounded_String (My_Capacity);
>
> I would write
>
>   To_Unbounded_String (Length => My_Capacity);
>
> to make it clear which To_Unbounded_String you're calling.

Yes. I try to follow the "rule" that names associations should be used
for any subprogram call with more than one parameter. I've never
considered hardening this rule for overloaded subprograms.

> > "Seems to work fine" means that after the above two operations the
> > string is logically empty, but the subsequent appends run faster
> > (which is actually the original motivation).
>
> How much faster (I'm curious)?

This of course depends on what is the ration between allocations and
reservations in a given test.

Here:

with Ada.Strings.Unbounded;
procedure String_Test is
begin
   for I in 1 .. 10000 loop
      declare
         S : Ada.Strings.Unbounded.Unbounded_String;
         use Ada.Strings.Unbounded;
      begin
--       S := Ada.Strings.Unbounded.To_Unbounded_String (10000);
--       Ada.Strings.Unbounded.Delete (S, 1, 10000);
         for J in 1 .. 10000 loop
            Ada.Strings.Unbounded.Append (S, 'A');
         end loop;
      end;
   end loop;
end String_Test;

On my machine and with option -O2 uncommenting the two lines makes a
difference between 1.86s and 1.43s, which is about 20% gain. Depending
on a situation it might or might not be worth the hassle (the hassle
is in determining the correct reservation size - and if we can know it
fully in advance, then maybe there is no point in using unbounded at
all).

--
Maciej Sobczak
http://www.msobczak.com/