list mirror (unofficial, one of many)
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Jeff King <>
To: Elijah Newren <>
Cc: Git Mailing List <>,
	Derrick Stolee <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clear_pattern_list(): clear embedded hashmaps
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 14:48:21 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 10:22:27AM -0700, Elijah Newren wrote:

> > > +       hashmap_free_entries(&pl->recursive_hashmap, struct pattern_entry, ent);
> > > +       hashmap_free_entries(&pl->parent_hashmap, struct pattern_entry, ent);
> >
> > This clears up the hash entries, but continues to leak the hash table.
> > Since you submitted first, can you fix this to use hashmap_free_()
> > instead, as per
> >
> >  Then I'll rebase my series on yours and drop my first patch (since
> > it'll then be identical).
> Nevermind, I got confused once again by the name.
> hashmap_free_entries() doesn't mean just free the entries, it means
> free what hashmap_free() would plus all the entries, i.e. do what
> hashmap_free() *should* *have* *been* defined to do.  Such a confusing
> API.  And hashmap_free() really perplexes me -- it seems like a
> function that can't possibly be useful; it's sole purpose seems to be
> a trap for the unwary.

There used to be an "also free entries" flag, but that got complicated
by the loosening of the "hashmap_entry must be at the front of the
struct to be freed" rule.

With this kind of embedded-entry data structure (and list.h is in the
same boat) it _is_ sometimes useful to be part of a data structure
without giving up ownership of the memory. But I agree that the more
normal case is to free items when the hashmap is destroyed.

Likewise, the whole "you have to define a struct that contains the map
entry" thing is flexible and efficient, but a pain to use.

I generally find khash's "map this type to that type, the hash owns the
memory" much more natural. And it doesn't lose efficiency (and indeed
sometimes even gains it) because it uses macros to store concrete types.
But of course macros create their own headaches. :)

Anyway, I'm definitely open to renaming to something more sensible. I
already mentioned the free/clear thing earlier, but
hashmap_clear_entries() ends up _very_ confusing. Because it's clearing
the hashmap but freeing the entries. hashmap_clear_and_free_entries() is
kind of long, but a lot more descriptive.


      reply	other threads:[~2020-08-17 18:48 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-08-14 11:10 Jeff King
2020-08-14 12:13 ` Derrick Stolee
2020-08-17 16:55 ` Elijah Newren
2020-08-17 17:22   ` Elijah Newren
2020-08-17 18:48     ` Jeff King [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

  List information:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH] clear_pattern_list(): clear embedded hashmaps' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

Code repositories for project(s) associated with this inbox:

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).