From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 29 16:41:47 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71C8716A420 for ; Tue, 29 Nov 2005 16:41:47 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jasone@canonware.com) Received: from lh.synack.net (lh.synack.net [204.152.188.37]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAB9343D73 for ; Tue, 29 Nov 2005 16:41:36 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jasone@canonware.com) Received: by lh.synack.net (Postfix, from userid 100) id 2CC6B5E48F6; Tue, 29 Nov 2005 08:41:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.168.203] (moscow-cuda-gen2-68-64-60-20.losaca.adelphia.net [68.64.60.20]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lh.synack.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABF5E5E48EA; Tue, 29 Nov 2005 08:41:32 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <9b1858120511290252w1e6d3458m@mail.gmail.com> References: <9b1858120511290252w1e6d3458m@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <7AA89647-5ABE-43C9-8BB0-57E04D2F66A4@canonware.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Jason Evans Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 08:41:11 -0800 To: Hiten Pandya X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.746.2) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.4 (2005-06-05) on lh.synack.net X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.8 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_NJABL_DUL, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL autolearn=no version=3.0.4 Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: New libc malloc patch X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 16:41:48 -0000 On Nov 29, 2005, at 2:52 AM, Hiten Pandya wrote: > I see that you have included an implementation of red-black tree CPP > macros, but wouldn't it be better if you were to use the ones in > ? I have only had a precursory look, but I would have > thought that would be the way to go. There is a feature missing from sys/tree.h that I need (rb_nsearch() in the patch), but you are right that it would probably be best to use sys/tree.h. I am going to work on adding RB_NFIND(), and will then try switching to sys/tree.h. Thanks, Jason