On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 8:26 AM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinn...@iki.fi> wrote:
> Thanks for having a look!
>
> On 14/07/2021 18:18, Zhihong Yu wrote:
> > For the loop over the hash:
> >
> > + for (int idx = 0; idx < capacity; idx++)
> > {
> > - if (olditemsarr[i] != resarr->invalidval)
> > - ResourceArrayAdd(resarr, olditemsarr[i]);
> > + while (owner->hash[idx].kind != NULL &&
> > + owner->hash[idx].kind->phase == phase)
> > ...
> > + } while (capacity != owner->capacity);
> >
> > Since the phase variable doesn't seem to change for the while loop, I
> > wonder what benefit the while loop has (since the release is governed by
> > phase).
>
> Hmm, the phase variable doesn't change, but could the element at
> 'owner->hash[idx]' change? I'm not sure about that. The loop is supposed
> to handle the case that the hash table grows; could that replace the
> element at 'owner->hash[idx]' with something else, with different phase?
> The check is very cheap, so I'm inclined to keep it to be sure.
>
> - Heikki
>
Hi,
Agreed that ```owner->hash[idx].kind->phase == phase``` can be kept.
I just wonder if we should put limit on the number of iterations for the
while loop.
Maybe add a bool variable indicating that kind->ReleaseResource(value) is
called in the inner loop.
If there is no releasing when the inner loop finishes, we can come out of
the while loop.
Cheers
