Thanks!
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 07:46:09PM -0700, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
> Thanks for a thorough review Ben! I just sent a v2 to the list.
>
> I addressed all your concerns and even found a small bug when testing with
> the new test-ccmap.
>
> Jarno
>
> > On Apr 21, 2016, at 2:42 PM, Ben Pfa
Scrap the v2, I sent a v3 which avoids a portability problem I introduced in v2.
Jarno
> On Apr 22, 2016, at 7:46 PM, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
>
> Thanks for a thorough review Ben! I just sent a v2 to the list.
>
> I addressed all your concerns and even found a small bug when testing with
> t
Thanks for a thorough review Ben! I just sent a v2 to the list.
I addressed all your concerns and even found a small bug when testing with the
new test-ccmap.
Jarno
> On Apr 21, 2016, at 2:42 PM, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 07:06:46PM -0700, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
>> Staged
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 07:06:46PM -0700, Jarno Rajahalme wrote:
> Staged lookup indices assumed that cmap is efficient fealing with
> duplicates. Duplicates are implemented as linked lists, however,
> causing removal of rules to become (O^2) and highly cache-inefficient
> with large number of dup
> --- Original Message ---
> Staged lookup indices assumed that cmap is efficient fealing with
> duplicates. Duplicates are implemented as linked lists, however,
> causing removal of rules to become (O^2) and highly cache-inefficient
> with large number of duplicates.
>
> This was problematic esp
