move nextAvail back as much as possible #199
Open
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
echaozh
reviewed
Apr 8, 2025
| while (free.find(--nextAvail) != free.end()) { | ||
| // move back next avail as much as possible | ||
| ; | ||
| nextAvail--; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We prefer the prefix operator here when the result is not needed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You're right. But for a tiny style issue, I think the fix is good.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@echaozh Thank you for the review, updated the PR, PTAL.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The original code won't move the nextAvail.
Say we have 5 slots, and all allocated.
T1. nextAvail = 5, free = {}
T2. dealloc(2), nextAvail = 5, free = {2}
T3. dealloc(3), nextAvail = 5, free = {2, 3}
T4. dealloc(4)
Or is it because of performance issue to remove the free.erase logic here? If so we don't need to while check here.