On 23/10/2018 17:20, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
On 2018-10-11 01:03, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
On 05/10/2018 15:28, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes
---
I have no idea if the performance matters (it probably doesn't). Feel
free to ignore this and the followup cleanup.
On 2018-10-11 01:03, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> On 05/10/2018 15:28, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes
>> ---
>> I have no idea if the performance matters (it probably doesn't). Feel
>> free to ignore this and the followup cleanup.
>
> What's the problem you're fixing here
On 2018-10-11 01:03, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> On 05/10/2018 15:28, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes
>> ---
>> I have no idea if the performance matters (it probably doesn't). Feel
>> free to ignore this and the followup cleanup.
>
> What's the problem you're fixing here
On 05/10/2018 15:28, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes
---
I have no idea if the performance matters (it probably doesn't). Feel
free to ignore this and the followup cleanup.
What's the problem you're fixing here ?
Is it tested ?
"Append to the list and do a merge sort" is not really an insertion
sort. While a few more lines of code, we can keep the list sorted doing
at most n comparisons by iterating until we find the first element
strictly greater than gb.
Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes
---
I have no idea if the
