https://github.com/felipepiovezan commented:
> I thought about it, it was simpler indeed. My intuition tells me that it's > fragile to have a cache allowing overlap. I pointed at the simplicity as a plus, but my real concern is the quadratic behaviour. If we have N insertions, each of which has a tiny overlap with the one before, LLDB is going to be quite slow processing that. E.g. `[1000, 2100), [2000, 3100), [3000, 4100)...`. Maybe the numbers here are not big enough in practice, but it does concern me to have this kind of complexity in LLDB. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/208347 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list [email protected] https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
