This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-developers@cygwin.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: biggest... check-in... ever...
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 10:01:14AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 11:47:30AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >There's still the naming of the harddisk devices which is different
> >from what they are named before. They should be named /dev/sd..,
> >not /dev/hd..
>
> I haven't forgotten about this. It's on my todo. It falls under the
> "some things will be broken".
Fair enough.
> > Wouldn't a binary array search be better
> >for this? It would drop the need to use gperf, btw.
>
> If you can find some kind of binary tree compiler similar to gperf,
> I'll certainly consider it.
Actually I meant a binary search in an array, not a binary tree.
How big is the speed advantage of a fairly elaborate solution as
a hash over a simple sorted array with respect to devices? The
array would be created from the same dataset you're already defining
in devices.gperf, it would just have to be always sorted.
Talking about binary trees, isn't gperf also able to create binary
trees? [dig, dig, dig] The man page talks about using the -S option
with a very big number so that it creates a binary search using
switch statements. Sort of a binary tree statementwise... Hmm...
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Developer mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com
Red Hat, Inc.