Subject: hashtable update
From: Patrick Lam (plam@plam.lcs.mit.edu)
Date: Thu May 24 2001 - 03:40:01 CDT
ok,
i did some more hacking on the new hashtable and fixed a stupid bug which
i'd added.
it seems to now work pretty well. the only noticeable brokenness are a
bunch of asserts covering the following comments:
//UT_HASH_PURGEDATA(UT_UCSChar *, m_hashWords);
i'm not quite clear what UT_HASH_PURGEDATA should do. so if someone tells
me what to do there, we should be happy with the new hashtable.
the only other problem is that we do need to decide on sane memory
ownership semantics for the hashtable. who owns the keys, and who's
responsible for freeing them?
pat
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Sat May 26 2001 - 03:51:07 CDT