Passing strings efficiently

ed_davis2@yahoo.com (Ed Davis)
9 Mar 2003 17:36:26 -0500

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Passing strings efficiently ed_davis2@yahoo.com (2003-03-09)
Re: Passing strings efficiently joachim_d@gmx.de (Joachim Durchholz) (2003-03-14)
Re: Passing strings efficiently Martin.Ward@durham.ac.uk (Martin Ward) (2003-03-14)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: ed_davis2@yahoo.com (Ed Davis)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 9 Mar 2003 17:36:26 -0500
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Keywords: storage, performance, comment
Posted-Date: 09 Mar 2003 17:36:26 EST

I have a very simple programming language. It generates
code for a stack-based Virtual Machine. A contrived example:


----------starts here--------------------------------------
string s = "testing" -- s is a global string


procedure bad_practice() -- legal, but nasty
        s = "changed!" -- changes the value of s
end


procedure foo(string s2) -- s2 is passed by value
        print("foo:s:", s)
        print("foo:s2:", s2)
        bad_practice()
        print("foo:s:", s)
        print("foo:s2:", s)
end


foo(s) -- mainline code, calls foo, passing s by value
----------ends here----------------------------------------


Initially, I passed by-value strings by making a copy of the string,
and sending the address of the copy to the called procedure. When the
procedure returned, the copy was deleted.


However, I was thinking that I could just pass the address of a
special string structure, with some flags to indicate that it is
read-only. Then, I would only have to make a copy of the string if
foo() actually modified it. Of course, I'd have to be careful to free
the copy when foo() completes.


Well, I kind of got that working. But then I came up with this
example. It breaks my code - apparently my implementation is not
satisfactory.


I'm having a hard time figuring out what information I need to keep in
my string structure, and how I would go about making the necessary
adjustments when another routine changes the string in a unexpected
(to me!) fashion.


Or perhaps I'm looking at this in the wrong way? I was assuming that
changing the global string would cause a copy to be made to be used
locally (by foo), but perhaps it is the global string that should
point to the new copy? But that doesn't seem right either.
[I think you're reinventing garbage collection. -John]


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.