On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 1:06 AM, Russ Cox wrote:
I think the CL that has been pinpointed is too complex and should be rolled
back. We can fix the pointer scan problem by moving overflow back to the
bucket header,
I don't understand how moving overflow pointer to the beginning of
bucket will fix the scanning of large maps problems.

and then we can fix the pointer walking problem that the
overflow move fixed by adding a dummy word to the header. I don't want to
have to look at code like in CL 85e7bee and wonder whether it's correct.
It's not obviously incorrect but it's not obviously correct either. Why
bother with the complexity?

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Search Discussions

Discussion Posts


Follow ups

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
posts ‹ prev | 10 of 18 | next ›
Discussion Overview
groupgolang-dev @
postedFeb 11, '15 at 11:27p
activeFeb 20, '15 at 6:47a



site design / logo © 2022 Grokbase