Thread: [PATCH] Refactor "if(strspn(str, ...) == strlen(str)" code

Hi.

I noticed that there is a lot of repeating code like this:

```
if (strspn(str, " \t\n\r\f") == strlen(str))
```

I personally don't find it particularly readable, not mentioning that
traversing a string twice doesn't look as a good idea (you can check
using objdump that latest GCC 6.2 doesn't optimize this code).

How about rewriting such a code like this?

```
if (pg_str_containsonly(str, " \t\n\r\f"))
```

Corresponding patch is attached. I don't claim that my implementation of
pg_str_containsonly procedure is faster that strspn + strlen, but at
least such refactoring makes code a little more readable.

--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev

On 8 December 2016 at 15:54, Aleksander Alekseev
<a.alekseev@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I noticed that there is a lot of repeating code like this:
>
> ```
> if (strspn(str, " \t\n\r\f") == strlen(str))
> ```
>
> I personally don't find it particularly readable, not mentioning that
> traversing a string twice doesn't look as a good idea (you can check
> using objdump that latest GCC 6.2 doesn't optimize this code).

You could just change it to

if (str[strspn(str, " \t\n\r\f")] == '\0')

to mitigate calling strlen. It's safe to do so because strspn will
only return values from 0 to strlen(str).

Geoff

Aleksander Alekseev <a.alekseev@postgrespro.ru> writes:
> How about rewriting such a code like this?
> if (pg_str_containsonly(str, " \t\n\r\f"))

Function name seems weirdly spelled.  Also, I believe that in nearly all
use-cases the number of data characters that would typically be examined
is small, so I have serious doubts that the "optimized" implementation
you propose is actually faster than a naive one; it may be slower, and
it's certainly longer and harder to understand/test.

Whether it's worth worrying about, I dunno.  This is hardly the only
C idiom you need to be familiar with to read the PG code.
        regards, tom lane

Tom, Geoff,

Thanks for your feedback! Here is version 2 of this patch.

> You could just change it to
> if (str[strspn(str, " \t\n\r\f")] == '\0')
> to mitigate calling strlen. It's safe to do so because strspn will
> only return values from 0 to strlen(str).

> [...] I have serious doubts that the "optimized" implementation
> you propose is actually faster than a naive one; it may be slower, and
> it's certainly longer and harder to understand/test.

I would like to point out that I never said it's optimized. However I
like the code Geoff proposed. It definitely doesn't make anything worse.
I decided to keep pg_str_contansonly procedure (i.e. not to inline this
code) for now. Code with strspn looks OK in a simple example. However in
a concrete context it looks like a bad Perl code in ROT13 to me:

```
/* try to figure out what's exactly going on */
if(somelongname[strspn(somelongname /* yes, again */, "longlistofchars")] != '\0')
```
> Function name seems weirdly spelled.

I named it the same way pg_str_endswith is named. However I'm open for
better suggestions here.

> Whether it's worth worrying about, I dunno.  This is hardly the only
> C idiom you need to be familiar with to read the PG code.

Well, at least this v2 version of the patch removes second string
scanning. And I still believe that this inlined strspn is not readable
or obvious at all.

--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev

Tom, Geoff,

Thanks for your feedback! Here is version 2 of this patch.

> You could just change it to
> if (str[strspn(str, " \t\n\r\f")] == '\0')
> to mitigate calling strlen. It's safe to do so because strspn will
> only return values from 0 to strlen(str).

> [...] I have serious doubts that the "optimized" implementation
> you propose is actually faster than a naive one; it may be slower, and
> it's certainly longer and harder to understand/test.

I would like to point out that I never said it's optimized. However I
like the code Geoff proposed. It definitely doesn't make anything worse.
I decided to keep pg_str_contansonly procedure (i.e. not to inline this
code) for now. Code with strspn looks OK in a simple example. However in
a concrete context it looks like a bad Perl code in ROT13 to me:

```
/* try to figure out what's exactly going on */
if(somelongname[strspn(somelongname /* yes, again */, "longlistofchars")] != '\0')
```
> Function name seems weirdly spelled.

I named it the same way pg_str_endswith is named. However I'm open for
better suggestions here.

> Whether it's worth worrying about, I dunno.  This is hardly the only
> C idiom you need to be familiar with to read the PG code.

Well, at least this v2 version of the patch removes second string
scanning. And I still believe that this inlined strspn is not readable
or obvious at all.

--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev

On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 3:23 AM, Aleksander Alekseev
<a.alekseev@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
>> You could just change it to
>> if (str[strspn(str, " \t\n\r\f")] == '\0')
>> to mitigate calling strlen. It's safe to do so because strspn will
>> only return values from 0 to strlen(str).
>
>> [...] I have serious doubts that the "optimized" implementation
>> you propose is actually faster than a naive one; it may be slower, and
>> it's certainly longer and harder to understand/test.
>
> I would like to point out that I never said it's optimized. However I
> like the code Geoff proposed. It definitely doesn't make anything worse.
> I decided to keep pg_str_contansonly procedure (i.e. not to inline this
> code) for now. Code with strspn looks OK in a simple example. However in
> a concrete context it looks like a bad Perl code in ROT13 to me:

Looking at this patch, I am not sure that it is worth worrying about.
This is a receipt to make back-patching a bit more complicated, and it
makes the code more complicated to understand. So I would vote for
rejecting it and move on.

By the way, as you are placing this routine in src/common/, you may
want to consider updating the code in src/bin/ that use libpqcommon.
-- 
Michael

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> Looking at this patch, I am not sure that it is worth worrying about.
> This is a receipt to make back-patching a bit more complicated, and it
> makes the code more complicated to understand. So I would vote for
> rejecting it and move on.

I have done so for now to make the CF move, if somebody wants to
complain feel free...
-- 
Michael