hi,
i have to admit i am not too much into theory of hashing, but i am
unclear on how a perfect hash function can be simpler than "the
obvious method" when the namespace is changing dynamically because
modules are added or deleted.
(the obvious method would be a cheap hash on 2-4 chars of
the name followed by a scan of the list in each hash slot.)
Hopefully the number of functions using this method is
small enough not to worry about the depth of the lists,
and the type of calls using this method is one where the amt
of work in the syscall itself is way larger than the matching cost.
cheers
luigi
> > generic_syscall("fdcloseall", ....);
> >
> >In this way it would be clear what the non-portable pieces of code
> >are, and the mechanism would be extensible with no changes to
> >libraries and syscalls. You could even have dynamically-loaded
> >modules implementing new "syscalls".
>
> I see a meachanism like
> new_syscall(str, args) = syscall(hash(str), args)
> where hash() is chosen to guarantee unicity (that wouldn't be hard to find).
> we then have both performance (working with indexes instead of comparing
> strings) like what is currently available, and the flexibility of strings.
>
> Note that this goes in the same dynamic "wind" than loadable modules and
> the like: static gets old...
>
>
> cheers,
> mouss
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
