On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 8:26 AM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> wrote:
Thanks for having a look!
On 14/07/2021 18:18, Zhihong Yu wrote: > For the loop over the hash: > > + for (int idx = 0; idx < capacity; idx++) > { > - if (olditemsarr[i] != resarr->invalidval) > - ResourceArrayAdd(resarr, olditemsarr[i]); > + while (owner->hash[idx].kind != NULL && > + owner->hash[idx].kind->phase == phase) > ... > + } while (capacity != owner->capacity); > > Since the phase variable doesn't seem to change for the while loop, I > wonder what benefit the while loop has (since the release is governed by > phase).
Hmm, the phase variable doesn't change, but could the element at 'owner->hash[idx]' change? I'm not sure about that. The loop is supposed to handle the case that the hash table grows; could that replace the element at 'owner->hash[idx]' with something else, with different phase? The check is very cheap, so I'm inclined to keep it to be sure.
- Heikki
Hi,
Agreed that ```owner->hash[idx].kind->phase == phase``` can be kept.
I just wonder if we should put limit on the number of iterations for the while loop.
Maybe add a bool variable indicating that kind->ReleaseResource(value) is called in the inner loop.
If there is no releasing when the inner loop finishes, we can come out of the while loop.
