On 06/26/2013 12:22 PM, Tanu Kaskinen wrote: > On Wed, 2013-06-26 at 11:48 +0200, David Henningsson wrote: >> On 06/19/2013 05:40 PM, Tanu Kaskinen wrote: >>> A dynamic array is a nice simple container, but the old interface >>> wasn't quite what I wanted it to be. I like GLib's way of providing >>> the free callback at the container creation time, because that way >>> the free callback doesn't have to be given every time something is >>> removed from the array. >>> >>> The allocation pattern was changed too: instead of increasing the >>> array size always by 25 when the array gets full, the size gets >>> doubled now. >> >> Not sure if you need this now that the node ownership stuff is changed, > > I guess I don't need this now, but I'd still like to have this change in > dynarray. Is it OK for you? Yes, I'm okay with the rest of the changes. I noticed that dynarray_get semantics changed for getting element outside the array - I'm okay with the change but please go through the callers thoroughly to make sure we don't get assertion failures when we shouldn't. >> but anyway, it makes sense to have both (new_size = old_size * 2 + 25), >> both as an optimisation in the beginning, and especially so if >> n_allocated ever gets down to zero (I don't know if that can happen). > > n_allocated never decreases (at the moment anyway - I could implement > that if there is demand). > > I see the point of optimizing in the beginning. Currently the array > starts with allocated size of 1, so reallocations will happen when the > size reaches 2, 3, 5, 9, 17, 33... Starting with size 25 would perhaps > be better. > So if we start with n_allocated = 25 and increase with max(n_allocated * 2, 25), does that work for you? -- David Henningsson, Canonical Ltd. https://launchpad.net/~diwic
