Paul Eggert wrote: > On 07/04/10 03:00, Jim Meyering wrote: > >> Paul, one question I have is whether to include an initial_inode_set_size >> parameter in your di_set_alloc function. That would make it more >> efficient in the event that an application happens to know in advance the >> number of inodes it will process (say if it's processing a single device >> and all of its inodes). However, there's no rush to address that -- >> you're welcome to push this as-is. > > Thanks. Yes, the extra parameter would help for that; I had omitted > it because I couldn't think of a useful real-world case. For now I pushed > it without that change (please see below). This incorporates all your other > suggestions, plus the performance improvement with 32-bit % that I mentioned > earlier today. > >>From f6e2e13d3fee5219a6daece59ec9cc6241a04813 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Paul Eggert <[email protected]> > Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 14:53:14 -0700 > Subject: [PATCH] du: Hash with a mechanism that's simpler and takes less > memory.
Thanks! A minor nit for next time: du: Hash with a mechanism that's simpler and takes less memory. please do not capitalize and omit the period on the one-line summary One more thing: It fails to compile on x86_64 with -Werror: cc1: warnings being treated as errors di-set.c: In function 'di_ent_hash': di-set.c:86: error: right shift count >= width of type make[4]: *** [di-set.o] Error 1
