Matt Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Aug 24, 2010, at 12:25 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 11:21:37PM -0400, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote: > >> That's silly. A bitmask is a bitmask, and there's nothing magical or > >> difficult about masked compare. Even the bug OpenBSD just fixed -- now > >> that it basically doesn't matter any more -- is hardly complex nor is > >> the fix so. > > > > The issue with non-cont netmask is that it dramatically complicates the > > lookup code. I'd say that at least 1/3 of the radix tree implementation > > is just related to this "feature". > > Even worse, it's inefficient on newer hardware. Most platforms have a > count-leading operation which dramatically increases the lookups. Also > knowing the datatype and using datatype specific comparison speeds it > up even more. > > I've been removing the use of radix and switching to ptree in the network > rework.
Seems like there are good reasons to kill that code, especially the code complexity. I am also keen to see your ptree-based code. -- Mindaugas
