On 12/09/2012 07:41 PM, Eric Anholt wrote:
Brian Paul writes:
Hi Jordan,
set.c and hash_table.c look a LOT alike. Could the functions in set.c
be implemented in terms of the hash_table.c functions? It seems
little silly to have so much duplicated code.
The idea of the set code is to save
Brian Paul writes:
> Hi Jordan,
>
> set.c and hash_table.c look a LOT alike. Could the functions in set.c
> be implemented in terms of the hash_table.c functions? It seems
> little silly to have so much duplicated code.
The idea of the set code is to save most of the memory in the case that
Eric,
What do you think? Would set implemented via hash_table be
significantly less efficient?
-Jordan
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Brian Paul wrote:
> Hi Jordan,
>
> set.c and hash_table.c look a LOT alike. Could the functions in set.c be
> implemented in terms of the hash_table.c function
Hi Jordan,
set.c and hash_table.c look a LOT alike. Could the functions in set.c
be implemented in terms of the hash_table.c functions? It seems
little silly to have so much duplicated code.
-Brian
___
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesk