Re: [PATCH 0/5] Add struct strmap and associated utility functions

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Sep 1, 2020, 09:27 UTC
Message-ID: <20200901092731.GA1268661@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <CABPp-BGQB8rD8KyzccTQQ_X3Puyy3g5OOSEQES8Lv8Qtb-zRPg@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 08:29:44AM -0700, Elijah Newren wrote:

Show 12 quoted lines

> > It may also be a sign that we should be growing the hash more
> > aggressively in the first place. Of course all of this is predicated
> > having some benchmarks. It would be useful to know which part actually
> > provided the speedup.
> 
> Your thoughts here are great; I also had another one this past week --
> I could introduce a hashmap_partial_clear() (in addition to
> hashmap_clear()) for the special usecase I have of leaving the table
> allocated and pre-sized.  It'd prevent people from accidentally using
> it and forgetting to free stuff, while still allowing me to take
> advantage.  But, as you say, more benchmarks would be useful to find
> which parts provided the speedup before taking any of these steps.

Yeah, having a separate function to explicitly do "remove all elements but keep the table allocated" would be fine with me. My big desire is that clear() should do the safe, non-leaking thing by default.

-Peff