2009/10/18 Ted Kremenek <[email protected]>: > 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? > >
Ah yes. _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
