linux-kernel - Generic Red-Black Trees (status update)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4FC00C50.3000907@att.net>
Date:	Fri, 25 May 2012 17:48:48 -0500
From:	Daniel Santos <danielfsantos@....net>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Generic Red-Black Trees (status update)

For anybody that's keeping up with this, I've gone through multiple
iterations and tests with 9 different gcc versions and concluded that
the search, insert & remove cores need to be coded in rbtree.h, using
the traditional interface (i.e., passing struct rb_node & rb_root
pointers instead of pointers to your specific object types).  The reason
is that gcc can't handle the cool fully-generic code until 4.6.  In gcc
4.5.x, optimization completely breaks expanding the inline functions
into huge bloated  monsters.  Also, while I'm re-coding it all, I'm
adding find_near & insert_near, for more efficient insertion & retrieval
when you already have a node that should be close to the one you want
(which is often the case when inserting many objects at once).

So after I'm done with this, I'll start on a new header file (grbtree.h
probably) using the "grb_" prefix for it's functions that implements the
gcc 4.6.x+ fully generic & type safe interface, but using cute
pre-processor tricks for pre-4.6.x compatibility (basically, something
to consider using once gcc 4.6+ is more widely used).

Daniel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/