Jeff King p...@peff.net writes:
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 03:41:37AM -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote:
+static inline void bitset_set(unsigned char *bits, int n)
+{
+ bits[n / CHAR_BIT] |= 1 (n % CHAR_BIT);
+}
Is it intentional or an oversight that there is no way to clear a bit
in
On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 09:57:13AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Another thing I noticed was that the definition of and the
commentary on bitset_equal() and bitset_empty() sounded somewhat
undecided. These functions take max that is deliberately named
differently from num_bits (the width of
On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 03:41:37AM -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote:
+static inline void bitset_set(unsigned char *bits, int n)
+{
+ bits[n / CHAR_BIT] |= 1 (n % CHAR_BIT);
+}
Is it intentional or an oversight that there is no way to clear a bit
in the set?
Intentional in the sense
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Jeff King p...@peff.net wrote:
We already have a nice-to-use bitmap implementation in
ewah/bitmap.c. It pretends to be infinitely long when asking
for a bit (and just returns 0 for bits that haven't been
allocated or set), and dynamically resizes as appropriate
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 05:15:05AM +0200, Torsten Bögershausen wrote:
+ */
+static inline int bitset_sizeof(int num_bits)
+{
+ return (num_bits + CHAR_BIT - 1) / CHAR_BIT;
+}
Just a general question about the usage of int here (and at other places):
Is there a special reason for new
We already have a nice-to-use bitmap implementation in
ewah/bitmap.c. It pretends to be infinitely long when asking
for a bit (and just returns 0 for bits that haven't been
allocated or set), and dynamically resizes as appropriate
when you set bits.
The cost to this is that each bitmap must store
On 2014-06-26 01.40, Jeff King wrote:
[]
+ */
+static inline int bitset_sizeof(int num_bits)
+{
+ return (num_bits + CHAR_BIT - 1) / CHAR_BIT;
+}
Just a general question about the usage of int here (and at other places):
Is there a special reason for new code to allow num_bits to be
7 matches
Mail list logo
