delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
X-Authentication-Warning: | delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f |
Date: | Mon, 14 Mar 2016 13:00:06 -0400 |
Message-Id: | <201603141700.u2EH06la024493@envy.delorie.com> |
From: | DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com> |
To: | geda-user AT delorie DOT com |
In-reply-to: | <alpine.DEB.2.00.1603140610270.7885@igor2priv> |
(gedau AT igor2 DOT repo DOT hu) | |
Subject: | Re: [geda-user] pcb: more memory leaks |
References: | <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1603130700180 DOT 7885 AT igor2priv> <alpine DOT DEB DOT 2 DOT 00 DOT 1603140610270 DOT 7885 AT igor2priv> |
Reply-To: | geda-user AT delorie DOT com |
Errors-To: | nobody AT delorie DOT com |
X-Mailing-List: | geda-user AT delorie DOT com |
X-Unsubscribes-To: | listserv AT delorie DOT com |
> not a leak, just wondering: hid/common/flags.c:hid_find_init() why > do we implement bsearch() in the second half of the function instead > of just calling it, especially that we did not implement our own > qsort()? bsearch() should be as portable as qsort() - both are > C89. (In pcb-rnd I've replaced the whole thing with a > string->pointer hash, so I don't need a linked list, an array and a > flag to remember whether the array is sorted, etc - shorter, > simpler, faster code (r1261)). binary search is so simple to implement, that using bsearch() would not have saved that many bytes and/or cycles. A hash would make more sense but I was going for "what can I type in the fastest" :-)
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |