[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: hash resizing bug
From: |
Jim Meyering |
Subject: |
Re: hash resizing bug |
Date: |
Thu, 18 Jun 2009 16:23:26 +0200 |
Eric Blake wrote:
...
> + hash: minor optimization
> + * lib/hash.c (hash_lookup, hash_find_entry): Avoid function call
> + when possible.
> + (hash_initialize): Document this promise.
> + (hash_do_for_each, hash_clear, hash_free): Use C89 syntax.
> + * tests/test-hash.c (hash_compare_strings): Test this.
Other than mixing syntax and semantics changes in the same
change set, this looks fine.
> + hash: provide default callback functions
> + * lib/hash.c (raw_hasher, raw_comparator): New functions.
> + (hash_initialize): Use them as defaults.
> + * tests/test-hash.c (main): Test this.
This looks fine, too.
Thanks.
- Re: hash resizing bug, (continued)
- Re: hash resizing bug, Jim Meyering, 2009/06/17
- Re: hash resizing bug, Eric Blake, 2009/06/17
- Re: hash resizing bug, Jim Meyering, 2009/06/18
- Re: hash resizing bug, Jim Meyering, 2009/06/17
- Re: hash resizing bug, Eric Blake, 2009/06/18
- Re: hash resizing bug, Jim Meyering, 2009/06/18
- Re: hash resizing bug,
Jim Meyering <=
- Re: hash resizing bug, Jim Meyering, 2009/06/18
- Re: hash resizing bug, Eric Blake, 2009/06/18
- Re: hash resizing bug, Jim Meyering, 2009/06/18
- Re: hash resizing bug, Eric Blake, 2009/06/18
- hash and bitrotate (was: hash resizing bug), Eric Blake, 2009/06/18
- Re: hash and bitrotate, Eric Blake, 2009/06/18
- Re: hash and bitrotate, Jim Meyering, 2009/06/18
- Re: hash and bitrotate, Simon Josefsson, 2009/06/18
- Re: hash resizing bug, Jim Meyering, 2009/06/18
- Re: hash resizing bug, Ben Pfaff, 2009/06/18