Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH] flexible array implementation v3 | From | Dave Hansen <> | Date | Thu, 23 Jul 2009 09:02:17 -0700 |
| |
On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 11:44 -0400, Oren Laadan wrote: > Probably premature, but -- I wonder if it's worth adding interfaces to: > > * copy a range of elements at once (perhaps to/from regular array ? > or userspace ? -- depending on potential users)
I can see this making some sense, especially if you're dumping a bunch of stuff out to userspace and don't want to worry about page boundaries, etc... Or, if you have a ton of stuff to copy and some of the flex_array overhead is getting in the way. I'm not opposed to it, but I think I'd want to see a user first to make sure I got the implementation right.
> * (macro ?) iterate through elements (better have it ready for users > of flex_array before, than convert their code later on)
I've thought about this, but I don't think there's much advantage to doing it. It obfuscates things without any real gain in simplicity. We have LIST_FOR_EACH() because containerof() and some of the typing is a little non-obvious. But, here, I think it's mostly dummy-proof:
We need a 'tmp' variable here because unlike list traversal, there's no position implied in the variables. So, we're looking at (with a new macro):
int tmp; FA_FOR_EACH(fa, var, tmp) foo(var);
vs.
int i; for (i = 0; i < fa->total_nr_elements; i++) foo(flex_array_get(fa, i));
The macro *looks* cleaner, but I don't think it really buys us much.
-- Dave
| |