James Hawkins wrote:
On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Nathan Gallaher
<[email protected]> wrote:
+struct cond_mem {
+ struct list entry;
+ void *ptr;
+};
+
+static void cond_free( void *info, void *ptr )
+{
+ COND_input *cond = (COND_input*) info;
+ struct cond_mem *mem, *safety;
+
+ LIST_FOR_EACH_ENTRY_SAFE( mem, safety, &cond->mem, struct cond_mem, entry )
+ {
+ if( mem->ptr == ptr )
+ {
+ msi_free( mem->ptr );
+ list_remove( &(mem->entry) );
+ msi_free( mem );
+ return;
+ }
+ }
+ ERR("Error freeing %p\n", ptr);
+}
This won't fly. cond_free needs to be an O(1) operation, like your
original patch.
This was exactly the same as your proposed implementation.
Well, the simplest thing to do here is to no-op the cond_free function
and just free all memory when parsing is done, but you seemed to not
like that the last time. Perhaps you were just looking for a solution
that keeps the notion of a cond_free intact, with the implementation open?
The only other alternative that I see here is to use a hashmap, but I
don't immediately see an implementation of a proper hashmap available in
include/wine. I could go implement a hashmap, but I want to make sure
that's the approach that you will accept before I do a bunch of work
that you're not happy with again.
Is there anything else that you talked with AJ about that I should know
before I go further? It would have been nice if whatever conversation
there was had been shared publicly on the wine-devel list, since I could
have avoided this headache.
