Am 01.10.2018 um 22:26 schrieb Jeff King:
> On Mon, Oct 01, 2018 at 09:15:53PM +0200, René Scharfe wrote:
> The reason hashmap.c was added was to avoid open addressing. ;)
Because efficient removal of elements is easier to implement with
chaining, according to 6a364ced49 (add a hashtable implementation that
supports O(1) removal). khash.h deletes using its flags bitmap. We
didn't compare their performance when entries are removed so far.
> So yeah, I think it could perhaps be improved, but in my mind talking
> about "hashmap.c" is fundamentally talking about chained buckets.
Admittedly I wouldn't touch hashmap.c, as I find its interface too
complex to wrap my head around. But perhaps I just didn't try hard
enough, yet.
>> But I like how khash.h is both already in the tree and also really easy
>> to deploy, as it's just a single header file. It's a tasty low-hanging
>> fruit.
>
> Yeah. And if it really does perform better, I think we should stick with
> it in the code base. I wonder if we could stand to clean up the
> interfaces a little. E.g., I had a hard time declaring a hash in one
> place, and then defining it somewhere else.
You can't use KHASH_DECLARE and KHASH_INIT together, as both declare
the same structs. So I guess the idea is to have a header file with
KHASH_DECLARE and a .c file with KHASH_INIT, the latter *not* including
the former, but both including khash.h. I didn't actually try that,
though.
> And I think as you found
> that it insists on heap-allocating the hash-table struct itself, which
> does not match our usual style.
Perhaps we can fix that with little effort (see below).
>> This is straight-forward, except for oidset_clear(), which needs to
>> allocate a kh_oid_t on the heap in order to be able to feed it to
>> kh_destroy_oid() for release it. Alternatively we could open-code the
>> relevant parts of the latter, but that would be a layering violation.
>
> This is kind of a layering violation, too. You're assuming that struct
> assignment is sufficient to make one kh struct freeable from another
> pointer. That's probably reasonable, since you're just destroying them
> both (e.g., some of our FLEX structs point into their own struct memory,
> making a hidden dependency; but they obviously would not need to free
> such a field).
Fair enough. How about this on top? (The khash.h part would go in
first in a separate patch in a proper series.)
NB: I stuck to the 4-spaces-tabs formatting in khash.h here.
---
khash.h | 9 +++++++--
oidset.c | 4 +---
2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/khash.h b/khash.h
index 07b4cc2e67..d10caa0c35 100644
--- a/khash.h
+++ b/khash.h
@@ -82,11 +82,16 @@ static const double __ac_HASH_UPPER = 0.77;
SCOPE kh_##name##_t *kh_init_##name(void) {
\
return (kh_##name##_t*)xcalloc(1, sizeof(kh_##name##_t));
\
}
\
+ SCOPE void kh_release_##name(kh_##name##_t *h)
\
+ {
\
+ free(h->flags);
\
+ free((void *)h->keys);
\
+ free((void *)h->vals);
\
+ }
\
SCOPE void kh_destroy_##name(kh_##name##_t *h)
\
{
\
if (h) {
\
- free((void *)h->keys); free(h->flags);
\
- free((void *)h->vals);
\
+ kh_release_##name(h);
\
free(h);
\
}
\
}
\
diff --git a/oidset.c b/oidset.c
index d15b2b7a89..9836d427ef 100644
--- a/oidset.c
+++ b/oidset.c
@@ -25,8 +25,6 @@ int oidset_remove(struct oidset *set, const struct object_id
*oid)
void oidset_clear(struct oidset *set)
{
- kh_oid_t *to_free = kh_init_oid();
- *to_free = set->set;
- kh_destroy_oid(to_free);
+ kh_release_oid(&set->set);
oidset_init(set, 0);
}
--
2.19.0
