On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 8:19 AM, Myles Watson mylesgw@gmail.com wrote:
+/* we should only ever delete simple nodes: nodes with no kids. */ +void del_node(struct node *node) +{
struct node *n;assert(! node->children);if (first_node == node) {first_node = node->next;free(node);return;}for_all_nodes(n) {if (n->next != node)continue;n->next = node->next;n->next_sibling = node->next_sibling;Will this always be true? It seems like you need to go through again to
do
the sibling links right.
I don't think so because, at this point, n is prev(node to be deleted).
so I am setting prev(node)->next and next_sibling to node->next etc. Am I missing something?
I was thinking about the case where n wasn't the sibling of the node being deleted. For example, a first child being deleted.
It seems like you should at least check that n->next_sibling was node before setting it to node->next_sibling.
I have code whiteout, can you write this correctly for me :-)
Do we guarantee that you will never be appending to a NULL list (first
==
NULL), I didn't see that check.
Here's my thinking on this. The guarantee is that there is always a root node -- we don't ever remove that.
I guess I'm confused here. I was talking about when we call it from fixup_properties with chipnodes as the list. It looks like we could delete all of them. Do I have it backward?
yes. We should only ever delete mainboard nodes, not chip nodes.
ron