On Thu, Oct 09, 2025 at 02:57:41PM +1300, David Rowley wrote:
> I don't think there's any need to maintain the order of that members
> array, so couldn't you just do this?:
>
> bms = bms_del_member(bms, member);
> members[pos] = members[--num_members];
Yep, I was just playing with all that and moving the last element to
the member we know is gone would be cheaper. I have also added more
comments to document everything in a more precise way, while going
through.
I also do not see a point in preventing inserts in the second set at
the beginning of the function. This forces bms_union() to do more
operations with overlapping sets.
What do you think about the attached?
--
Michael
