From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id CBEA2207F8 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 11:54:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (turing.freelists.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NB6v8QG2DR0k for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 11:54:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail-lf1-f65.google.com (mail-lf1-f65.google.com [209.85.167.65]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTPS id 886E3207F4 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 11:54:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-lf1-f65.google.com with SMTP id y4so10894638lfe.11 for ; Mon, 09 Sep 2019 08:54:30 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 18:54:22 +0300 From: Cyrill Gorcunov Subject: [tarantool-patches] Re: [PATCH 1/6] box/console: Add mapping for direct symbols Message-ID: <20190909155422.GD1508@uranus> References: <20190905212815.7311-1-gorcunov@gmail.com> <20190905212815.7311-2-gorcunov@gmail.com> <1568041904.757717225@f509.i.mail.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1568041904.757717225@f509.i.mail.ru> Sender: tarantool-patches-bounce@freelists.org Errors-to: tarantool-patches-bounce@freelists.org Reply-To: tarantool-patches@freelists.org List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: tarantool-patches List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-post: List-Archive: To: Sergey Ostanevich Cc: tarantool-patches@freelists.org, Alexander Turenko , Konstantin Osipov On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 06:11:44PM +0300, Sergey Ostanevich wrote: > Cyrill, > > Why not to move the map_direct_symbols to the module level, so that > creation and > fill of the table will happens only once and not at every call to the > output handler? Well, initially I thought to keep such things inside serializer helper so that if we need we will easily extend this table and the change will be inside function context. I must admit I think all this comes from a strong habbit of working with compilers where such thing would be simply optimized. That said I agree we should do so. I think this issue could be addressed on top as a separate patch? Just to not resend the whole series.