mischasan
commented
3 years ago Unrelated: I hope you don't mind my curiosity, but are you looking at acism for the fun of it, or applying it somewhere. It's currently being used in a spam detection engine (rspamd), and in a cancer research genome search at the U of Queensland ... and the person in charge of the latter turned out to be a friend of a guy who works out at my gym. Small world.
I'd be careful about such a change. I remember a bug with pointers to the root affecting tranv[]. (Yes, it's been a while; can't recall the specific).
On 12/02/2021, zxxunkxzhx notifications@github.com wrote:
in following statement, if (tp->back == troot) tp->back = NULL; // simplify tests. tp->back is changed for condition tests purpose, but I am afraid this is not a good idea
if we can assume any node's back reference pointer being always valid since initiated or set, we can benefit from using it without null-checks through out this project. so for here, I would suggest don't change back reference into NULL, instead, when we need checking if back reference is NULL inside this function, we use (tp->back == troot)
thanks
-- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/mischasan/aho-corasick/issues/36
-- Engineers think equations approximate reality. Physicists think reality approximates the equations. Mathematicians never make the connection.
zxxunkxzhx
in following statement, if (tp->back == troot) tp->back = NULL; // simplify tests. tp->back is changed for condition tests purpose, but I am afraid this is not a good idea
if we can assume any node's back reference pointer being always valid since initiated or set, we can benefit from using it without null-checks through out this project. so for here, I would suggest don't change back reference into NULL, instead, when we need checking if back reference is NULL inside this function, we use (tp->back == troot)
thanks