On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 11:07:39AM -0500, Jon Loeliger wrote:
> So, like, the other day Jon Loeliger mumbled:
> >
> > > First, a trivial one: I remember leaving this as a right-recursion,
> > > despite the stack-nastiness, because that way the properties end up in
> > > the same order as in the source. I think that behaviour is worth
> > > preserving, but of course we can do it with left-recursion by changing
> > > chain_property() to add to the end of the list instead of the
> > > beginning.
> >
> > Understood. And I wrestled with that as well. In fact, I even
> > wrote the reverse_properties() function, which I will include,
> > and used it initially. However, several test failed. So I
> > removed it, and it all started happily working again.
>
> I was confused. It was the version of the code that _did_
> use the property reversal that worked.
Ok. Except that I think we shouldn't need to have an explicit
reverse_properties(). Just build the list in-order by having
chain_property() append to the end of the list.
It's theoretically expensive, since we have to walk the list each
time, but frankly I don't think we need to worry about dtc performance
until we actually see a single non-contrived tree that takes a
noticeable amount of time to process: I've never seen one yet.
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
