Need a Faster Compressor

[Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d]

On 5/23/2016 2:17 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
> Then don't do that. I.e. re-mangle recursively from scratch for each mangled
> name and allow sharing parts between unrelated components within that mangled
> name.

How is that essentially different from running a compression pass? The only real 
problem with the compressor was the compression speed, and the LZ4 test shows 
this is solvable.


 > (That's similar to how the compiler stores the structure in memory, which
> also avoids the exponential blowup.)

No, it doesn't.


> You can't have exponential growth before compression.

The compiler is designed so that the internal names are pretty much write-only, 
uniquely hashed by their address. It's not spending time running strlen()'s on them.


> Any scheme that does not prevent running time exponential in template instantiation depth is also
> inadequate in the long run.

Most algorithms seem to have pathological worst cases, but as long as they are 
rare, it doesn't impede their utility.