[PATCH 3/3] Use GPerf for command names.

[Steven Grimm]

You could use it for commands like "stats" that have subcommands. Hard  
to see how it'd be useful for much beyond that.

This was a good idea, BTW. I like it. We should make sure that the  
release tarballs don't require gperf to be installed; the hash values  
should be the same everywhere for a given release of the code (since  
the command set is fixed) so there shouldn't be any need to make  
people install gperf unless they're adding/removing commands in the  
text protocol. We can just run it once before tarring and let end  
users reuse the output.

-Steve


On Nov 7, 2007, at 10:56 AM, Aaron Stone wrote:

> The resulting code is much prettier. The existing code does satisfy  
> the
> O(1) requirement, but as a big fan of gperf, I like this a lot.
>
> How do you use gperf for further parsing?
>
> Aaron
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2007, Tomash Brechko <tomash.brechko at gmail.com> said:
>
>> Using one lookup per command instead of a sequence of strcmp() is  
>> more
>> scalable.  This patch doesn't change command syntax or semantics in
>> any way.  The next step would be to use GPerf for the rest of the
>> parsing.
>
> [snip patch]