Re: reasonability of change the mbfl library
| From: | Rowan Collins | Date: | Sun, 10 Feb 2019 20:02:28 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: reasonability of change the mbfl library | ||
| References: | 1 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-104333@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On 10/02/2019 12:29, Legale Legage wrote:
This conception can be used for the utf-16 encoding, but table size would be 65536 bytes against 256 byte for the utf-8 table.Rather than two 65 kilobyte lookup tables with most entries identical, would it be reasonable to use a bit mask to check for the range we care about? I may have this slightly wrong, but something like: #define UTF16_LE_CODE_UNIT_IS_HIGH_SURROGATE (code_unit & 0xFC00 == 0xD800) #define UTF16_BE_CODE_UNIT_IS_HIGH_SURROGATE (code_unit & 0x00FC == 0x00D8) m = UTF16_LE_CODE_UNIT_IS_HIGH_SURROGATE(*(uint16_t *)p) ? 4 : 2; Regards, -- Rowan Collins [IMSoP]