| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
When we delete entries in the hash set, we mark them "deleted" by
setting their key to the deleted_key, which points to a dummy
deleted_key_value. When searching for an entry, we normally skip over
those, but set_add() had some code for searching for duplicate entries
which forgot to skip over deleted entries. This led to a segfault inside
the NIR vectorization pass, since its key comparison function
interpreted the memory where deleted_key_value resides as a pointer and
tried to dereference it.
v2:
- add better commit message (Timothy)
- use entry_is_deleted (Timothy)
Reviewed-by: Timothy Arceri <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Connor Abbott <[email protected]>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Previously, the set_insert function would bail early if it found a deleted
slot that it could re-use. However, this is a problem if the key being
inserted is already in the set but further down the list. If this happens,
the element ends up getting inserted in the set twice. This commit makes
it so that we walk over all of the possible entries for the given key and
then, if we don't find the key, place it in the available free entry we
found.
Reviewed-by: Eric Anholt <[email protected]>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
v2: s/unsigned int/unsigned/ in prog_optimize.c
Signed-off-by: Jan Vesely <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: David Heidelberg <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Jose Fonseca <[email protected]>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Previously, the set API required the user to do all of the hashing of keys
as it passed them in. Since the hashing function is intrinsically tied to
the comparison function, it makes sense for the hash set to know about
it. Also, it makes for a somewhat clumsy API as the user is constantly
calling hashing functions many of which have long names. This is
especially bad when the standard call looks something like
_mesa_set_add(ht, _mesa_pointer_hash(key), key);
In the above case, there is no reason why the hash set shouldn't do the
hashing for you. We leave the option for you to do your own hashing if
it's more efficient, but it's no longer needed. Also, if you do do your
own hashing, the hash set will assert that your hash matches what it
expects out of the hashing function. This should make it harder to mess up
your hashing.
This is analygous to 94303a0750 where we did this for hash_table
Signed-off-by: Jason Ekstrand <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Matt Turner <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Eric Anholt <[email protected]>
|
|
|
Reviewed-by: Matt Turner <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Eric Anholt <[email protected]>
|
