Re: [Bug-gnubg] bitfields

[Gary Wong]

On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 07:01:15PM +0100, Jim Segrave wrote:
> Assuming (which may not be true) that there are relatively few
> different evalcontexts active during any run of gnubg, then you could
> replace storing the contexts with storing simply an index into a table
> of pointers to copies of the setups, which would make the storage
> requirements even smaller (and makes comparing setups and contexts
> even faster), for what that might be worth.

Perfectly true, we could do that.  I seem to remember discussing the
possibility of sharing evalcontexts with ref-counting semantics at the
time we implemented moverecords, but we must have decided against it
for one reason or another (presumably because the bookkeeping is
slightly annoying and error-prone; another reason is that evalcontexts
used to be smaller, comparable to the size of an integer/pointer,
which isn't true any more).  I get the impression that your suggestion
is to keep a copy of each evalcontext in a hash table even after it is
unreferenced, which does look more appealing now that rolloutcontexts
are significantly bigger than they used to be.

Cheers,
Gary.
-- 
   Gary Wong           address@hidden           http://www.cs.arizona.edu/~gary/