Re: utf-16 and glib

"Martin (OPENGeoMap)" <martin opengeomap org> writes:

> Maciej Piechotka escribió:
>> On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 23:48 +0100, Martin (OPENGeoMap) wrote:
>>> I believe que a C compiler is the right place to this kind of
>>> unsafe code.
>> What do you mean by 'unsafe'? If the 'unsafe' code is unsafe there is no
>> place to put it. If the 'unsafe' means that the code cannot be verified
>> easily by compiler if it is correct that there is place in C code (or
>> any other).
> by unsafe i want say something like the g-signal-connect macro:

Is there any 'magic switch' which changes it behaviour? 

>>> If i want create safe code i have c#,c++, JAVA, D or VALA.
>>> Using macros is the only way to ensure intermediate APIs don´t have
>>> any overhead.
>> How much is the overhead? How big it is in compare to for example I/O in
>> accessing filesystem, drawing in access to GTK+ or to GC in access to
>> C#/Java?
> hummm.
> Example:
> If we have for example a DWG binary file we have for example 15000
> utf16 strings. If i use glib i need make 15000 translations utf16/utf8
> to use the utf8 glib api.  When i need save the file i need make other
> 15000 translations. There are thounsand of formats using utf16. I
> don´t love utf16, but I "MUST" use utf16 in the real world. I am not
> the guilty of existence of utf16 :'( .
> Regards.

How much more time does it need for the conversion? In compare to the
I/O? Will it be 30%, 3%, 0.3%, 0.03% or 0.003% faster?

I've probably left my head... somewhere. Please wait untill I find it.
Homepage (pl_PL):
(GNU/)Linux User: #425935 (see

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]