On Fri, 03.05.13 09:30, Kok, Auke-jan H (auke-jan.h....@intel.com) wrote: > >> The linked list approach drives down this memory requirement and makes > >> navigating all the data much more straightforward. I also much prefer > >> head pointers instead of having index numbers around. > > > > Still sounds like greedy_realloc() is what you want here. Storing sample > > data in a dynamically increasing array sounds much more natural than a > > linked list. > > I admit I hadn't heard of greedy_realloc() unti Zbigniew mentioned it, > and I still fail to see why it would be so much better other than "you > can access members by index". You're still doing an allocation each > time you extend the array (unless you're doing tricks and > preallocate).
Yes, that's what it does, it reallocates with exponentially increasing sizes. The benefit is random access and a you need two pointers less per entry, which is quite something on 64bit... Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
