mirroring previous topic/vern/set-ops to get branch up to date, since I'm a n00b

This commit is contained in:
Vern Paxson 2018-06-23 14:46:47 -07:00
parent e93c638f8d
commit 6449b0ab9e
4 changed files with 121 additions and 13 deletions

View file

@ -1704,9 +1704,18 @@ int TableVal::RemoveFrom(Val* val) const
HashKey* k;
while ( tbl->NextEntry(k, c) )
{
Val* index = RecoverIndex(k);
// ### The following code appears to be a complete
// no-op. Commented out 8+ years after it was
// introduced. -VP 22Jun18
// Val* index = RecoverIndex(k);
//
// Unref(index);
Unref(index);
// Not sure that this is 100% sound, since the HashKey
// comes from one table but is being used in another.
// OTOH, they are both the same type, so as long as
// we don't have hash keys that are keyed per dictionary,
// it should work ...
Unref(t->Delete(k));
delete k;
}
@ -1714,6 +1723,41 @@ int TableVal::RemoveFrom(Val* val) const
return 1;
}
TableVal* TableVal::Intersect(const TableVal* tv) const
{
TableVal* result = new TableVal(table_type);
const PDict(TableEntryVal)* t1 = tv->AsTable();
const PDict(TableEntryVal)* t2 = AsTable();
const PDict(TableEntryVal)* t3 = result->AsTable();
// Figure out which is smaller.
if ( t1->Length() > t2->Length() )
{ // Swap.
const PDict(TableEntryVal)* t3 = t1;
t1 = t2;
t2 = t3;
}
IterCookie* c = t1->InitForIteration();
HashKey* k;
while ( t1->NextEntry(k, c) )
{
//### // Here we leverage the same assumption about consistent
//### // hashes as in TableVal::RemoveFrom above.
//### if ( t2->Lookup(k) )
//### {
//### Val* index = RecoverIndex();
//### result->
//###
//### Unref(index);
//### Unref(t->Delete(k));
//### delete k;
}
return result;
}
int TableVal::ExpandAndInit(Val* index, Val* new_val)
{
BroType* index_type = index->Type();