Hi Zhongxing, I actually wasn't criticizing the change of using a SmallSet instead of a DenseMap; I was just wondering if you had a specific reason for making the change.
The best answer to the question of which one is better is to just measure it. We should try implementing RegionStoreManager::RemoveDeadBindings() with both a SmallSet and a DenseMap on some realistic benchmarks and see which one performs better. On Oct 17, 2009, at 8:00 PM, Zhongxing Xu wrote: > 2009/10/18 Ted Kremenek <[email protected]>: >> Zhongxing, >> >> Is there a reason you changed 'IntermediateVisited' from a DenseSet >> to a >> SmallSet? Did you see a performance difference? I would expect >> DenseSet to >> be much faster if we scan many regions. >> > > I originally thought there are not many regions to be scanned for a > single function. But I didn't make a test. I'll change it to dense > set. > > BTW, how much regions should we use dense set or small set? _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
