On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 02:05:43PM +0100, Nagy Gabor wrote:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 03:11:22PM -0600, Aaron Griffin wrote:
On Nov 20, 2007 9:56 AM, Nagy Gabor <ngaba@bibl.u-szeged.hu> wrote:
I'd be happy if I shouldn't resubmit a s/tmp/last/ change ;-) <- this is a trivial sed on my patch.
Please sed the patch and resubmit.
I did it already:
http://chantry.homelinux.org/~xav/gitweb/gitweb.cgi?p=pacman.git;a=shortlog;...
Thanks a lot. I found this comment _very_ useful: /* The list pointers passed in should be considered invalid after calling this function. */ This also shows that the tail pointer can confuse us.
Well, I forgot to let my box running, so Dan probably couldn't reach it, and so he reworked the patch himself and added additional comments like the one above :)
I have an idea: Since we can check in O(1) time whether a node is a "valid" head node or not (node->prev && node->prev->next == NULL), we could modify alpm_list_last to check this to choose between the new (fast) and the old (slow) algorithms. And modify alpm_list.c to call alpm_list_last whenever last node is needed. By doing this alpm_list.c becomes compatible with the old lists (head->prev == NULL) and we can use sublists (see also: http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2007-November/010213.html)
It looks like this is doable, but I'm not sure I like the road this is taking. Surely there are better and cleaner list implementations than that.