top: improve sort field storage/lookup

[kevans]

Summary

Switch up comparator mapping to avoid these kinds of errors, use a
simple array of (name, comparator) pairs rather than having to maintain
entries in two separate arrays that must have matching indices.

[pstef]

But the summary contains the same phrase twice, seems unintentional.

[kevans]

In D37083#842126, @pstef wrote:

But the summary contains the same phrase twice, seems unintentional.

Whoops, good shout. Just axing this entirely:

, but the
`equivalent comparator wasn't added at that time.[...]

[kib]

usr.bin/top/machine.c

1674–1675

Switch to designated initializers?

[kevans]

usr.bin/top/machine.c

1674–1675

It's a bit awkward since we're cross-referencing between two arrays, but yeah, good point- I'll go ahead and switch this to a simple array of string, comparator pairs

[kevans]

Improve underlying storage/lookup mechanism for sort orders

[kevans]

I'm going to commit the previous version of this as a stupid simple fix to get into 13.2, but still wanted to improve this.

[kib]

usr.bin/top/machine.c

236

Could this array be const?

[kevans]

Sprinkle const around, our sort data should never change

[obiwac]

string_index (utils.c) isn't used anymore - should it be removed?

otherwise looks good to me

[kevans]

GC the now-unused string_index(); refresh the diff, since this has been rebased
continuously over the past three years in my local tree and the current diff in
phab may not actually apply.

[kevans]

In D37083#1184190, @obiwac wrote:

string_index (utils.c) isn't used anymore - should it be removed?

otherwise looks good to me

Good shout, thanks. GC'd.