Re: [PATCH 1/2] oleaut32: Convert ITypeInfo implementation to use standard linked list
Andrew Eikum <aeikum(a)codeweavers.com> writes:
- /* search element n in list */ - for(i=0; i < index; i++) + i = 0; + LIST_FOR_EACH_ENTRY (pTypeInfo, &This->typeinfo_list, ITypeInfoImpl, entry) + { + if(i >= index) + break; + ++i; + }
It looks like an array would be more appropriate than a list. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org
On 12/13/2010 05:34 AM, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Andrew Eikum<aeikum(a)codeweavers.com> writes:
- /* search element n in list */ - for(i=0; i< index; i++) + i = 0; + LIST_FOR_EACH_ENTRY (pTypeInfo,&This->typeinfo_list, ITypeInfoImpl, entry) + { + if(i>= index) + break; + ++i; + }
It looks like an array would be more appropriate than a list.
An array would work, especially for the static structures that are used now, but these cleanup patches were made with the goal of merging the typelib-reading and typelib-creation interfaces in mind. Specifically, implementing the typelib-creation interfaces using the current data structures in typelib.c. Given the function ICreateTypeLib::CreateTypeInfo(), a list seems more appropriate to me.
Andrew Eikum <aeikum(a)codeweavers.com> writes:
An array would work, especially for the static structures that are used now, but these cleanup patches were made with the goal of merging the typelib-reading and typelib-creation interfaces in mind. Specifically, implementing the typelib-creation interfaces using the current data structures in typelib.c. Given the function ICreateTypeLib::CreateTypeInfo(), a list seems more appropriate to me.
If a list is really more appropriate for creation, then they shouldn't share the structure. The reading API is clearly index-based, a list isn't appropriate for that. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org
On 12/13/2010 10:03 AM, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Andrew Eikum<aeikum(a)codeweavers.com> writes:
An array would work, especially for the static structures that are used now, but these cleanup patches were made with the goal of merging the typelib-reading and typelib-creation interfaces in mind. Specifically, implementing the typelib-creation interfaces using the current data structures in typelib.c. Given the function ICreateTypeLib::CreateTypeInfo(), a list seems more appropriate to me.
If a list is really more appropriate for creation, then they shouldn't share the structure. The reading API is clearly index-based, a list isn't appropriate for that.
Typelib objects on Windows support both the reading and the creation interfaces. I find it unlikely that they maintain two different structures depending on which interface is being used, as Wine currently (sort of) does. I think the question is whether the structures should assist reading or creation. Would you prefer using arrays in the structures? This would obviously require reallocating space for the arrays and maintaining counts in the implementation of the creation interfaces. This seems more error-prone to me, but you have a valid point about the API being built around indexes.
Andrew Eikum <aeikum(a)codeweavers.com> writes:
Typelib objects on Windows support both the reading and the creation interfaces. I find it unlikely that they maintain two different structures depending on which interface is being used, as Wine currently (sort of) does. I think the question is whether the structures should assist reading or creation.
Clearly it should be optimized for reading, that happens much more frequently. -- Alexandre Julliard julliard(a)winehq.org
participants (2)
-
Alexandre Julliard -
Andrew Eikum