James Hawkins wrote:
On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Nathan Gallaher ngallaher@deepthought.org wrote:
+struct cond_mem {
- struct list entry;
- void *ptr;
+};
+static void cond_free( void *info, void *ptr ) +{
- COND_input *cond = (COND_input*) info;
- struct cond_mem *mem, *safety;
- LIST_FOR_EACH_ENTRY_SAFE( mem, safety, &cond->mem, struct cond_mem, entry )
- {
if( mem->ptr == ptr ){msi_free( mem->ptr );list_remove( &(mem->entry) );msi_free( mem );return;}- }
- ERR("Error freeing %p\n", ptr);
+}
This won't fly. cond_free needs to be an O(1) operation, like your original patch.
This was exactly the same as your proposed implementation.
Well, the simplest thing to do here is to no-op the cond_free function and just free all memory when parsing is done, but you seemed to not like that the last time. Perhaps you were just looking for a solution that keeps the notion of a cond_free intact, with the implementation open?
The only other alternative that I see here is to use a hashmap, but I don't immediately see an implementation of a proper hashmap available in include/wine. I could go implement a hashmap, but I want to make sure that's the approach that you will accept before I do a bunch of work that you're not happy with again.
Is there anything else that you talked with AJ about that I should know before I go further? It would have been nice if whatever conversation there was had been shared publicly on the wine-devel list, since I could have avoided this headache.