On 5/23/2016 2:17 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
Then don't do that. I.e. re-mangle recursively from scratch for each mangled name and allow sharing parts between unrelated components within that mangled name.
How is that essentially different from running a compression pass? The only real problem with the compressor was the compression speed, and the LZ4 test shows this is solvable.
> (That's similar to how the compiler stores the structure in memory, which
also avoids the exponential blowup.)
No, it doesn't.
You can't have exponential growth before compression.
The compiler is designed so that the internal names are pretty much write-only, uniquely hashed by their address. It's not spending time running strlen()'s on them.
Any scheme that does not prevent running time exponential in template instantiation depth is also inadequate in the long run.
Most algorithms seem to have pathological worst cases, but as long as they are rare, it doesn't impede their utility.
