Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
stats: add new TextReadout stat type #10639
stats: add new TextReadout stat type #10639
Changes from all commits
9f37764
7a54fa9
00ba424
c908a4f
54ed2b8
4aceda9
54c11b6
e1c7113
1a6bcbb
e54c044
8962680
ee17a73
8e0b860
9b561a0
285046f
39f393b
5423346
473a995
8ef123f
db9064a
2e8a020
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I am wondering if this will be contentious. WDYT of taking the 'value' param as an
&&
param and swapping it or moving it with value_, so we don't have to copy bytes while holding the lock?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Great suggestion! Done.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
actually I just thought of another idea; may be this would be more intuitive?
Leave this API as is, but change the implementation to copy the input param to a local without taking the lock, and then std::move it into the structure after taking the lock.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I agree that having
set()
method move input value is quite surprising, and I was going to suggest to keepconst std::string&
and addswap(std::string& value)
method, but I did find quite a few methods that take&&
, so I've scraped that. :)To be honest I would argue that lock contention is not an issue as I don't expect to have text readout values changed racily from multiple threads.
I might be coming from a very narrow use case point of view, but in that use case the value of the text readout is unlikely to change ever.
What use case are you thinking about?