On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 11:09:04AM +0200, René Scharfe wrote:
> Use prio_queue to improve worst-case performance at the cost of slightly
> worse best-case performance. Then add and use prio_queue_replace() to
> recover that loss.
>
> Changes since v2:
> - Mention that a prio_queue improves performance for merge-heavy
> histories in the commit message.
> - Add the new perf script to Meson build file.
> - Mention which kind of history we are aiming for and show its shape in
> a comment in the perf script.
> - Remove unnecessary quotes and use single quotes for the perf test
> code.
> - Rename the variable delete_pending to get_pending to align it with
> the concrete function prio_queue_get() instead of referring to the
> abstract concept of deletion, to improve readability.
>
> commit: convert pop_most_recent_commit() to prio_queue
> prio-queue: add prio_queue_replace()
> commit: use prio_queue_replace() in pop_most_recent_commit()
The patches in this series were picked up in the wrong order:
$ git log --topo-order --reverse --oneline -3 e436bc94f3
36554bf51a commit: convert pop_most_recent_commit() to prio_queue
304f06e0c0 commit: use prio_queue_replace() in pop_most_recent_commit(),MIME-Version: 1.0
e436bc94f3 prio-queue: add prio_queue_replace()
Note that the order of the second and third patches is reversed.
Since the second patch/third commit introduces a new function used by
the third patch/second commit, this leads to build failure of
304f06e0c0:
CC commit.o
commit.c: In function ‘pop_most_recent_commit’:
commit.c:754:33: error: implicit declaration of function ‘prio_queue_replace’; did you mean ‘prio_queue_reverse’? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
754 | prio_queue_replace(queue, commit);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| prio_queue_reverse
cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
make: *** [Makefile:2821: commit.o] Error 1
(And there's that MIME-Version thing at the end of 304f06e0c0's subject
line as well.)
