Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
depmod: Minor performance improvements #158
depmod: Minor performance improvements #158
Changes from all commits
4b4f7c5
72ce75c
785e8f6
859e4f6
0b18e47
a431787
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
When can the sort index be negative? Should we split that into a separate patch?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's negative if we encounter the line twice, i.e. someone entered the same line multiple times in input file. This could also allow to overflow any kind of counter.
In general, this value is supposed to be negative to be in front of all other indices written so far. So "unsigned int" makes a rather wrong impression on what's going on here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It sounds like a pre existing bug, which ideally should be a separate patch.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I can strip it out of this commit, but now that you've mentioned it: I didn't notice that it was a bug before as well. It occurred to me because I was trying to think about how to break my new approach.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'd prefer to keep it as it is, because otherwise we would have to keep track which line we have seen so far., bloating code which is removed with the next commit. So ... it's a nice bonus due to rewrite. ;)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sorry, I don't follow - what tracking/bloat are you referring to... Having the below as prep commit should be enough, no?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Oh yes, adding this AFTER my commit makes sense. I thought about adding this check to existing code, which would have been very complicated. Sorry for the noise. Adjusted.