Not see differences in results with performance from RB tree vs AVL, but right solution for problems when we have choice between algorithms.
On Thu, 19 May 2011 19:21:21 +0200 Mike Belopuhov <m...@crypt.org.ru> wrote: > On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Thordur Bjornsson <t...@openbsd.org> wrote: > > On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 07:52:44PM +0300, Michael Pounov wrote: > >> Add AVL tree implementation and merge few RB tree related macros. > >> > >> If you have comments or any claims, please send me feedback > >> and I will fix them. > > cool. but tech@ removes attachments, send your diffs inline. > > > > I'm assuming you implemented this as a macro a la RB/SPAY in > > tree.h; > > > > That being said, there is already an AVL tree implementation > > floating around, that's "not macros". > > > > I've been beating on it (with some of the RB trees diffs we > > have in the kernel switched over) for some time, and hopefully > > it will be committable soon. > > > > what do you need it for? it's pretty much the same as r/b tree. > do you think that lookup speed up is considerable? > same questions apply to Michael. > > > > > I think I'm not alone when I say that usage of yet another > > macro tree is not welcome, at least not in the kernel. > > > > ciao! > > thib > > -- M.Punov --------------------- AITNET - Sofia/Bulgaria - Software & Network Solutions (+359) 888 73 73 58;(+359) 2 402 4000
