Re: [PATCH 1/2] augmented rbtree: use max3() in the *_compute_max() function

[Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>]

On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 11:46 AM Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)
<urezki@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Recently there was introduced RB_DECLARE_CALLBACKS_MAX template.
> One of the callback, to be more specific *_compute_max(), calculates
> a maximum scalar value of node against its left/right sub-tree.
>
> To simplify the code and improve readability we can switch and
> make use of max3() macro that makes the code more transparent.
>
> Signed-off-by: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <urezki@gmail.com>

Thanks. The change is correct but I think I prefer it the "before"
version. My reasons are:

- I don't have a strong style preference either way - it's the same
amount of code either way, admittedly more modular in your proposal,
but also with more indirection (compute_max refers to get_max and
max3). The indirection doesn't hinder readability but IMO it makes it
harder to be confident that the compiler will generate quality code,
compared to the "before" approach which just lays down all the pieces
in a linear way.

- A quick check shows that the proposed change generates larger code
for mm/interval_tree.o:
   2757       0       0    2757     ac5 mm/interval_tree.o
   2533       0       0    2533     9e5 mm/interval_tree.o.orig
  This does not happen for every RB_DECLARE_CALLBACKS_MAX use,
lib/interval_tree.o in particular seems to be fine. But it does go
towards my gut feeling that the change trusts the compiler/optimizer
more than I want to.

- Slight loss of generality. The "before" code only assumes that the
RBAUGMENTED field can be compared using "<" ; the "after" code also
assumes that the minimum value is 0. While this covers the current
uses, I would prefer not to have that limitation.