Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 8/9] rbtree: faster augmented rbtree manipulation | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Date | Mon, 06 Aug 2012 23:36:22 +0200 |
| |
On Mon, 2012-08-06 at 14:34 -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote: > On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote: > > On Thu, 2012-08-02 at 15:34 -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote: > >> +struct rb_augment_callbacks { > >> + void (*propagate)(struct rb_node *node, struct rb_node *stop); > >> + void (*copy)(struct rb_node *old, struct rb_node *new); > >> + void (*rotate)(struct rb_node *old, struct rb_node *new); > >> +}; > > > > Should we make that const pointers? Daniel? > > I don't think it would hurt, but note that each function taking this > as an argument takes it as a const struct rb_augment_callbacks *, so I > doubt the extra consts would help either.
IIRC Daniel found it allowed some older GCC to inline more if the function pointer itself was constant.
| |