1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176 | /**************************************************************************/
/* string_name.h */
/**************************************************************************/
/* This file is part of: */
/* GODOT ENGINE */
/* https://godotengine.org */
/**************************************************************************/
/* Copyright (c) 2014-present Godot Engine contributors (see AUTHORS.md). */
/* Copyright (c) 2007-2014 Juan Linietsky, Ariel Manzur. */
/* */
/* Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining */
/* a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the */
/* "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including */
/* without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, */
/* distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to */
/* permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to */
/* the following conditions: */
/* */
/* The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be */
/* included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. */
/* */
/* THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, */
/* EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF */
/* MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. */
/* IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY */
/* CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, */
/* TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE */
/* SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. */
/**************************************************************************/
#ifndef STRING_NAME_H
#define STRING_NAME_H
#include "core/os/mutex.h"
#include "core/safe_refcount.h"
#include "core/ustring.h"
#define UNIQUE_NODE_PREFIX "%"
struct StaticCString {
const char *ptr;
static StaticCString create(const char *p_ptr);
};
class StringName {
enum {
STRING_TABLE_BITS = 12,
STRING_TABLE_LEN = 1 << STRING_TABLE_BITS,
STRING_TABLE_MASK = STRING_TABLE_LEN - 1
};
struct _Data {
SafeRefCount refcount;
const char *cname;
String name;
String get_name() const { return cname ? String(cname) : name; }
int idx;
uint32_t hash;
_Data *prev;
_Data *next;
_Data() {
cname = nullptr;
next = prev = nullptr;
idx = 0;
hash = 0;
}
};
static _Data *_table[STRING_TABLE_LEN];
_Data *_data;
union _HashUnion {
_Data *ptr;
uint32_t hash;
};
void unref();
friend void register_core_types();
friend void unregister_core_types();
static Mutex lock;
static void setup();<--- Unused private function: 'StringName::setup'
static void cleanup();<--- Unused private function: 'StringName::cleanup'
static bool configured;
StringName(_Data *p_data) { _data = p_data; }<--- Class 'StringName' has a constructor with 1 argument that is not explicit. [+]Class 'StringName' has a constructor with 1 argument that is not explicit. Such constructors should in general be explicit for type safety reasons. Using the explicit keyword in the constructor means some mistakes when using the class can be avoided.
public:
operator const void *() const { return (_data && (_data->cname || !_data->name.empty())) ? (void *)1 : nullptr; }
bool operator==(const String &p_name) const;
bool operator==(const char *p_name) const;
bool operator!=(const String &p_name) const;
_FORCE_INLINE_ bool is_node_unique_name() const {
if (!_data) {
return false;
}
if (_data->cname != nullptr) {
return (char32_t)_data->cname[0] == (char32_t)UNIQUE_NODE_PREFIX[0];
} else {
return (char32_t)_data->name[0] == (char32_t)UNIQUE_NODE_PREFIX[0];
}
}
_FORCE_INLINE_ bool operator<(const StringName &p_name) const {
return _data < p_name._data;
}
_FORCE_INLINE_ bool operator==(const StringName &p_name) const {
// the real magic of all this mess happens here.
// this is why path comparisons are very fast
return _data == p_name._data;
}
_FORCE_INLINE_ uint32_t hash() const {
if (_data) {
return _data->hash;
} else {
return 0;
}
}
_FORCE_INLINE_ const void *data_unique_pointer() const {
return (void *)_data;
}
bool operator!=(const StringName &p_name) const;
_FORCE_INLINE_ operator String() const {
if (_data) {
if (_data->cname) {
return String(_data->cname);
} else {
return _data->name;
}
}
return String();
}
static StringName search(const char *p_name);
static StringName search(const CharType *p_name);
static StringName search(const String &p_name);
struct AlphCompare {
_FORCE_INLINE_ bool operator()(const StringName &l, const StringName &r) const {
const char *l_cname = l._data ? l._data->cname : "";
const char *r_cname = r._data ? r._data->cname : "";
if (l_cname) {
if (r_cname) {
return is_str_less(l_cname, r_cname);
} else {
return is_str_less(l_cname, r._data->name.ptr());
}
} else {
if (r_cname) {
return is_str_less(l._data->name.ptr(), r_cname);
} else {
return is_str_less(l._data->name.ptr(), r._data->name.ptr());
}
}
}
};
void operator=(const StringName &p_name);
StringName(const char *p_name);<--- Class 'StringName' has a constructor with 1 argument that is not explicit. [+]Class 'StringName' has a constructor with 1 argument that is not explicit. Such constructors should in general be explicit for type safety reasons. Using the explicit keyword in the constructor means some mistakes when using the class can be avoided.
StringName(const StringName &p_name);
StringName(const String &p_name);<--- Class 'StringName' has a constructor with 1 argument that is not explicit. [+]Class 'StringName' has a constructor with 1 argument that is not explicit. Such constructors should in general be explicit for type safety reasons. Using the explicit keyword in the constructor means some mistakes when using the class can be avoided.
StringName(const StaticCString &p_static_string);<--- Class 'StringName' has a constructor with 1 argument that is not explicit. [+]Class 'StringName' has a constructor with 1 argument that is not explicit. Such constructors should in general be explicit for type safety reasons. Using the explicit keyword in the constructor means some mistakes when using the class can be avoided.
StringName();
~StringName();
};
StringName _scs_create(const char *p_chr);
#endif // STRING_NAME_H
|