On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 7:28 AM Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 03:15:35PM +0100, Christian Couder wrote:
>
> > In a following commit we will need to allocate a variable
> > number of bitmap words, instead of always 32, so let's add
> > bitmap_word_alloc() for this purpose.
>
> This name is much better than the horrible "bitmap_new2()" it was called
> in the original. ;)
>
> I wonder if "new_with_world_alloc" or "new_with_size" would make it more
> obvious that this is also a constructor, though.
bitmap_new_with_word_alloc() feels a bit verbose to me for such a
short function, so for now I kept bitmap_word_alloc().
I think that if we really want to use "new" for constructors then a
better solution would be something like renaming bitmap_new(void) to
bitmap_new_default(void) and bitmap_word_alloc(size_t word_alloc) to
bitmap_new(size_t word_alloc).
> > void bitmap_set(struct bitmap *self, size_t pos)
> > {
> > size_t block = EWAH_BLOCK(pos);
> >
> > if (block >= self->word_alloc) {
> > size_t old_size = self->word_alloc;
> > - self->word_alloc = block * 2;
> > + self->word_alloc = block ? block * 2 : 1;
>
> Since this hunk caused so much confusion, maybe worth calling it out in
> the commit message. Something like:
>
> Note that we have to adjust the block growth in bitmap_set(), since
> a caller could now use an initial size of "0" (we don't plan to do
> that, but it doesn't hurt to be defensive).
Ok, I added the above as a commit message note in my current version.
