[PATCH] include: Use fixed stack size for rbtree.

[Alexandre Julliard]

Henri Verbeet <hverbeet at gmail.com> writes:

> On 21 March 2016 at 04:50, Alexandre Julliard <julliard at winehq.org> wrote:
>> While we probably don't want that in all cases, having the option of a
>> simpler, allocation-free rbtree would be nice. I suspect there are a
>> number of global lists that could benefit from that.
>>
> I don't know. I think that outside of D3D it's only used in dbghelp
> and winemenubuilder, and at least in the winemenubuilder case it might
> be better to just sort the prog ID list before using it to generate
> associations. As for the usage in D3D, I think there could potentially
> be value in having a stack per-thread instead of per-rbtree, but I
> don't think that would necessarily make things simpler. Having a fixed
> stack size could certainly be done, but I don't think simply
> increasing the size of struct wine_rb_tree would make things better
> for any of the existing cases.

Sure, for the existing cases it's fine. My feeling is that there may be
more use cases if it was more straightforward to use. I know that a
couple of times I considered using an rbtree but didn't, because I felt
the potential gain wasn't worth the complexity (not only the extra
functions, but also the need to add error handling for allocation
failures).

-- 
Alexandre Julliard
julliard at winehq.org