On May 21, 2014, at 9:22 , Manuel Klimek <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 6:20 PM, Jordan Rose <[email protected]> wrote: > > On May 21, 2014, at 9:19 , Manuel Klimek <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 6:10 PM, Jordan Rose <[email protected]> wrote: >> You might want to bump up the size of the SmallVector too. Right now you're >> dynamically allocating a SmallVector<T, 1>, and immediately putting two >> things into it. Alternately, you could use a std::vector, which has a >> smaller sizeof itself. >> >> I tried the various combinations, and it didn't make a difference, so I went >> for making the code the simplest, which was reusing the ParentVector typedef. >> If we change the ParentVector to a SmallVector<T, 2> we'll also use that for >> getParents() which mostly returns a single element. >> > > SmallVector's already too big to fit in registers, so adding another two > words to it won't really hurt any uses on the stack, will it? > > So you're proposing to just bump it to 2? I'm happy to do that, but I lack > any way to get data that would sway me one way or the other, thus I think > it's mostly guesswork (but I trust your guesswork is probably better than > mine ;)
Well, we don't have that many matcher-based tools, so I'm not that familiar with how ParentVector is really used in practice. Dynamically allocating a SmallVector that is known to be too small just felt wrong to me, is all. Jordan
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
