hiraditya added inline comments.
Comment at: libcxx/include/algorithm:1499
+// Load the first element from __first2 outside the loop because it is
loop invariant
+typename iterator_traits<_RandomAccessIterator1>::value_type
__firstElement2 = *__first2;
+
mclow.lists requested changes to this revision.
mclow.lists added inline comments.
This revision now requires changes to proceed.
Comment at: libcxx/include/algorithm:1499
+// Load the first element from __first2 outside the loop because it is
loop invariant
+typename
mclow.lists accepted this revision.
mclow.lists added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
This looks fine to me - though I wonder if the compiler can hoist `*__first2`
w/o us helping it.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D26991
___
hiraditya updated this revision to Diff 79463.
hiraditya added a comment.
Removed unused code.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D26991
Files:
libcxx/include/algorithm
Index: libcxx/include/algorithm
===
--- libcxx/include/algorithm
+++
hiraditya added a comment.
@mclow.lists
I can remove this and update this patch with the load hoisted, if this is okay.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D26991
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
mclow.lists added a comment.
There are no uses of `_LIBCPP_UNROLL_LOOPS` in LLVM (other than the ones in
``.
Googling for `_LIBCPP_UNROLL_LOOPS` on github finds the ones in libc++, and no
others.
I think I'll just take it out, and see what happens.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D26991
sebpop added a comment.
In https://reviews.llvm.org/D26991#606764, @mclow.lists wrote:
> /me wonders what the perf difference when `_LIBCPP_UNROLL_LOOPS` is defined
> or not.
>
> I think this (`_LIBCPP_UNROLL_LOOPS`) falls squarely into Chandler's request
> that we complain to him when the
mclow.lists added a comment.
__search is the only place where `_LIBCPP_UNROLL_LOOPS` is currently used.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D26991
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
mclow.lists added a comment.
/me wonders what the perf difference when `_LIBCPP_UNROLL_LOOPS` is defined or
not.
I think this (`_LIBCPP_UNROLL_LOOPS`) falls squarely into Chandler's request
that we complain to him when the compiler generates sub-optimal code, instead
of doing things like
sebpop added a comment.
Let's also add a testcase and show the performance improvement.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D26991
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
hiraditya created this revision.
hiraditya added reviewers: EricWF, mclow.lists.
hiraditya added a subscriber: cfe-commits.
Worked with Sebastian Pop
https://reviews.llvm.org/D26991
Files:
libcxx/include/algorithm
Index: libcxx/include/algorithm
11 matches
Mail list logo
