On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 05:27:01PM +0000, Thordur Bjornsson wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 07:21:21PM +0200, Mike Belopuhov 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.
>
> It's not the same as an r/b tree.
>
> The main reason for it is to cut down on the code bloat that
> the tree.h macros introduce.
>
> Also, my (limited though, have not done proper networking checks)
> show no performance difference.
The networking code is where the performance differences tend to show up
the theory is still that gcc manages to inline the comparators
-0-
--
Some programming languages manage to absorb change, but withstand
progress.
-- Epigrams in Programming, ACM SIGPLAN Sept. 1982
