On 14 October 2016 22:41:25 CEST, Janne Blomqvist <blomqvist.ja...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 8:01 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer ><rep.dot....@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 13 October 2016 22:08:21 CEST, Jerry DeLisle ><jvdeli...@charter.net> wrote: >>>On 10/13/2016 08:16 AM, Janne Blomqvist wrote: >> >>>> >>>> Regtested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Ok for trunk? >>>> >>> >>>Yes, OK, clever! Thanks! >> >> Is 32 something a typical program uses? > >Probably not. Then again, wasting a puny 32 bytes vs. the time it >takes to do one or two extra realloc+copy operations when opening that >many files?
Every reallocated I'm aware of uses pools. > >> I'd have started at 8 and had not doubled but += 16 fwiw. > >I can certainly start at a smaller value like 8 or 16, but I'd like to Yes please. >keep the multiplicative increase in order to get O(log(N)) >reallocs+copys rather than O(N) when increasing the size. Bike-shedding but if she's going to use that many units O(log(N)) will be nothing compared to the expected insn storm to follow. Inc by max(initial value, 64, let's say - short of double initial value - is still overestimated IMHO. Thanks for taking care of this either way. Cheers
