[PATCH 1/5] kernelbase/locale: Implement sortkey generation on official tables

[Fabian Maurer]

Hello Zebediah,

> Yes, you'd have to iterate over the string multiple times. However,
> that's a fixed, small number. I wouldn't be concerned about performance
> until we find evidence that performance is a concern.

If you say so. I'll see what I can come up with.


> I don't think you need to write it such that you switch over which
> weight to write, either. It's probably easier just to make them separate
> functions, like in my example below.

That would lead to quite a bunch of code duplication, especially when we come
to the more difficult to handle characters. I'd like to avoid that. A switch
for which weight to write should be a lot simpler.


> > Also keep in mind, that we need to have some temporary buffer anyways,
> > since weights that are very small only get added when there is a bigger
> > one following it. Either that, or we need to backtrack and remove weights
> > again. Due to those issues, I opted for the current approach.
>
> Can you please give an example of this? I'm not sure I see it in any of
> your patches.

It's in patch 1, inside APPEND_LIST_TO_SORTKEY, see 'statement_is_ignored'.
And AFAIK not only diacritics are affected.
Not sure how I would best handle that when writing directly to the sortkey.


> Generally, you can continue to calculate size but only write when
> there's space in the buffer. When I've written functions like this I've
> found it to be relatively simple, though maybe there's some details here
> that I'm missing...

Well, there multiple places where we'd need to check. But maybe it'll work
out, just seemed more complex to me.


> >> Is there a reason to use LCMapStringEx() here rather than LCMapString()?
> >
> > LCMapStringA/W completely ignore the locale, and use a LCID. We'd need to
> > fix those functions to properly convert the locale. To start simple, I
> > decided to use the more low-level function and once that works, built the
> > rest on top.
> It seems a simple enough fix; just call LCIDToLocaleName().

Yeah, probably. But I'd rather get the low-level stuff working first. Then I
can write tests for the higher level functions and then fix them.


> Generally I believe that explicitly specifying "struct" is preferred as
> it makes clear what kind of object you're dealing with.

Okay then.

Regards,
Fabian Maurer