On 05/07/2013 01:10 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
> On 05/06/2013 07:54 PM, Cojocaru Alexandru wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 00:59:20 +0100
>> Pádraig Brady <P@draigBrady.com> wrote:
>>
>>> So I reinstated the bit vector which was a little tricky
>>> to do while maintaining performance, but it works very well.
>> I think it works because we are avoiding a memory access
>> inside `next_item' this way.
>>
>> With this patch I try to keep the CPU benefits for `--output-d'
>> and when large ranges are specified, even without the bitarray.
>>
>> Because of the sentinel now the max line len supported will be
>> `(size_t)-1 - 1' and no more `(size_t)-1'. Is this an issue?

Not a practical one.
We could bump the types/limits in the range pairs
up to uintmax_t since we're now not allocating
lot of corresponding memory.
Note I added a specific check to make it
explicit that -b$SIZE_MAX is not supported if specified.

I'll do that in a subsequent patch, but it's
not a practical issue for now, as we still allocate mem
for the whole line.

The new patch performs well!

I'll apply the attached in a little while.

thanks!
Pádraig.