cmpilato@collab.net wrote:
>Mark Grosberg <mark@nolab.conman.org> writes:
>
>
>
>>>it strikes me that you're complicating things enormously, *and* you
>>>introduced a quadratic algorithm for tagging the array.
>>>
>>>
>>Why?
>>
>>As for the algorithm on the array, I thought about using a hash. But I
>>figured that would waste memory. Usually the list of comitted files isn't
>>that large that it would matter.
>>
>>But I'll do it and submit another patch and see how it works. Should I
>>make a subpool for the hash or just use the pool passed in to the log
>>getter?
>>
>>
>
>The great thing about the hash is that you can alloc just the hash
>itself, but not bother duplicating the stuff in the array into the
>hash's pool. That is, there should be no lifetime concerns. So I
>don't think you'll be, say, doubling the amount of allocation for the
>commit items or anything.
>
Exactly.
>>>By the way, your method for deleting stiff from the array seems wrong;
>>>you never check the flag on the items you move from the end of the array
>>>
>>>
>>I'll change it to use qsort.
>>
>>
>
>Actually, I was a bit confused as to why the deletion step occurred at
>all. Can the commit driver not simply skip over those things as it is
>looping over the list?
>
>
That's not a good idea; it means pushng what is essentially a UI issue
into the commit driver. Besides you never know how that might complicate
things; like, what happens to externals processing, etc.
--
Brane Čibej <brane_at_xbc.nu> http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri May 9 02:40:15 2003