[url] Reserve size in a smarter way to account for pre-allocated buffers

[url] Reserve size in a smarter way to account for pre-allocated buffers

A previous change [1] changed the URL parsing code to be prepared to
allocate and reserve size for its own buffers, rather than relying on
callers to do so.

However, the patch did not address all callers, and regressed performance
for callers that *did* reserve their own buffers, by reserving a bit
extra space (8 bytes) to account for escaped characters.

Instead, if a caller has a pre-reserved buffer that we think can fit the
entire URL (minus escaped chars), we should just use it.

[1] https://codereview.chromium.org/2617173003/

BUG=657978
Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2641823004
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#447372}
Committed: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/60e6ff0ec09380ea502aa26d6480fc528b555eb8

[Charlie Harrison, 2017-01-19 20:48:52]

The CQ bit was checked by csharrison@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-01-19 20:49:18]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[Charlie Harrison, 2017-01-19 20:56:38]

csharrison@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ brettw@chromium.org

[Charlie Harrison, 2017-01-19 20:56:39]

Hey Brett,
I think this addresses the problem I noticed in the previous patch. To me, it
makes sense to continue to allow callers to pre-allocate their buffers if they
want to, while not requiring them to.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-01-19 22:33:39]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-01-19 22:33:40]

Dry run: This issue passed the CQ dry run.

[Charlie Harrison, 2017-01-24 15:23:50]

Brett: friendly ping

[Charlie Harrison, 2017-01-24 15:24:28]

Description was changed from

==========
[url] Reserve size in a smarter way to account for pre-allocated buffers

A previous change [1] changed the URL parsing code to be prepared to
allocate and reserve size for its own buffers, rather than relying on
callers to do so.

However, the patch did not address all callers, and regressed performance
for callers that *did* reserve their own buffers, by reserving a bit
extra space (8 bytes) to account for escaped characters.

Instead, if a caller has a pre-reserved buffer that we think can fit the
entire URL (minus escaped chars), we should just use it.

BUG=657978
==========

to

==========
[url] Reserve size in a smarter way to account for pre-allocated buffers

A previous change [1] changed the URL parsing code to be prepared to
allocate and reserve size for its own buffers, rather than relying on
callers to do so.

However, the patch did not address all callers, and regressed performance
for callers that *did* reserve their own buffers, by reserving a bit
extra space (8 bytes) to account for escaped characters.

Instead, if a caller has a pre-reserved buffer that we think can fit the
entire URL (minus escaped chars), we should just use it.

[1] https://codereview.chromium.org/2617173003/

BUG=657978
==========

[brettw, 2017-01-31 21:24:23]

LGTM

[Charlie Harrison, 2017-01-31 21:58:23]

The CQ bit was checked by csharrison@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-01-31 21:59:17]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 
https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/v2/patch-status/codereview.chromium.or...

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-01-31 23:59:35]

CQ is committing da patch.

Bot data: {"patchset_id": 1, "attempt_start_ts": 1485899903063640, "parent_rev":
"0395da22a30f257cfc5a93783de7991fdb52e7b9", "commit_rev":
"60e6ff0ec09380ea502aa26d6480fc528b555eb8"}

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-02-01 00:00:16]

Description was changed from

==========
[url] Reserve size in a smarter way to account for pre-allocated buffers

A previous change [1] changed the URL parsing code to be prepared to
allocate and reserve size for its own buffers, rather than relying on
callers to do so.

However, the patch did not address all callers, and regressed performance
for callers that *did* reserve their own buffers, by reserving a bit
extra space (8 bytes) to account for escaped characters.

Instead, if a caller has a pre-reserved buffer that we think can fit the
entire URL (minus escaped chars), we should just use it.

[1] https://codereview.chromium.org/2617173003/

BUG=657978
==========

to

==========
[url] Reserve size in a smarter way to account for pre-allocated buffers

A previous change [1] changed the URL parsing code to be prepared to
allocate and reserve size for its own buffers, rather than relying on
callers to do so.

However, the patch did not address all callers, and regressed performance
for callers that *did* reserve their own buffers, by reserving a bit
extra space (8 bytes) to account for escaped characters.

Instead, if a caller has a pre-reserved buffer that we think can fit the
entire URL (minus escaped chars), we should just use it.

[1] https://codereview.chromium.org/2617173003/

BUG=657978

Review-Url: https://codereview.chromium.org/2641823004
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#447372}
Committed:
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/60e6ff0ec09380ea502aa26d6480...
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2017-02-01 00:00:17]

Committed patchset #1 (id:1) as
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/60e6ff0ec09380ea502aa26d6480...