Open fluvf opened 10 months ago
Thoughts? Would you be happy with this implementation? I'd have time to clean this up today if you are
Thank you. I will dig deeper in it a bit later. What I can see right away is that entry read is still needed.
With current cache implementation, exec line is read directly from the cache.
Yes, this isn't trying to be faster than the current implementation. Some quick tests prove that it's not. But it is less code to maintain, and the cache should be much harder to invalidate
Accidentally based on #42 One monolithic commit as this is a mock-up Notable changes needed to make this work:
find_entry_paths
to overwrite any set aliases ~(Not actually strictly needed?)~ ~It is, if cachedfind
finds a duplicate entry that's of lower priority than one found during a full search, the higher priority entry is skipped~ No it's not, that entry alias would be unset Nevertheless, I will create a separate pull request with only this change laterfind_entry_paths
call and$FALLBACK_ENTRY_IDS
was moved insidefind_entry
The function needs to see the maskedfind
function set insidefind_cached_entry
, and the variable needs to be reset between calls There's actually no need for it to be a global any moreI don't know if I like
source
ing the cache file, might change that toread
loop when cleaning up, if you're happy with the implementation