Ozan Tezcan

@MadDogMayCry0 Underlying array in the hashmap only grows, it does not shrink. So, you want it shrink if many keys are deleted? It's not possible right now but we can...

@MadDogMayCry0 `load_factor` determines when to expand the underlying array. If you pass zero to it, it gets the default value which is `75`. So, if %75 of the underlying array...

> Yea, i want to a litle bit optimising an array after that, to speed up "foreach" :) Are you sure this is a bottleneck? You may actually hurt performance...

Ah okay I see, probably this is important in microcontroller world. I'll take a look later today, we can add auto shrinking without too much change anyway.

@MadDogMayCry0 Sorry, couldn't finalize this. Looks like auto shrink brings some complexity and some performance overhead. (This hashmap is being used in a very performance sensitive apps). So, I need...

Hi @MadDogMayCry0 Yes, looks like you were using stack allocated values and that was causing problems. Last snippet looks okay. I'd just check two things: 1- When you put a...

```c void map_put(struct sc_map_64s *map, int key, char *val) { char *ptr = malloc(strlen(val) + 1); strcpy(ptr, val); char *value = (char *) sc_map_put_64s(map, key, ptr); if (sc_map_found(map)) { free(value);...

@MadDogMayCry0 Oops, this is a bug :/ I see all our use cases either use `return`, `goto` or we iterate all the values so, we didn't realize it. Options: 1-...

I agree a tree implementation is missing in the toolset :) Currently, there is no plan for it. There is a bplus tree which I couldn't publish due to licensing...

Sorry, there is nothing for inter-process communication.