On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Ted Kremenek <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Aug 28, 2012, at 7:23 PM, Richard Trieu <[email protected]> wrote: > > If I read these numbers correctly, the hash table algorithm (with O(n) >> performance) takes about 1.6-2% percent more than the control for runs 1-3, >> and hardly anything noticeable for the clang code base. Were runs 1-3 used >> in your earlier measurements, >> > Yes, these are the same runs I have been using. I earlier did some more > runs with smaller files, but the improvements to this warning made the > differences too small to detect, so they were dropped. > > >> where the sorting-based approach took about ~4% longer (or is that not >> the correct number)? >> > That is correct. The fastest sorting-based reached 4% difference. > > > Ok, sounds great. The patch looks fantastic to me now, and the > performance is good. I'd be happy to see this go in. > Committed at revision 162938.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
