On Jul 24, 2012, at 2:38 AM, Timur Iskhodzhanov wrote: > On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 9:27 PM, John McCall <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Jul 23, 2012, at 7:53 AM, Timur Iskhodzhanov wrote: >>> Can you please review this patch? >>> >>> It fixes the mangling ( http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=13207 ), >>> adds some comments as well as adding a lot of tests for the mangler. >>> I've intentionally added a few extra namespaces to the test to improve >>> readability or to cover more codepaths. >>> I hope the new comments in the code are good enough so I don't need to >>> write the details in this e-mail. >> >> What a bizarre rule. > :) > >> This looks fine, > Thanks! > r160667. > >> but you might be happier using llvm::StringMap. > I've decided to stick with <map>, as > a) there's no "swap" method in StringMap > b) the operator= doesn't work with non-empty maps > c) there's no default constructor for StringMapIterator > Overall, it looks like switching to StringMap is an overkill.
Then please at least audit your code for places where you can use llvm_move, because the main problems with maps of non-POD types is that the API forces a *lot* of copies. John. _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
