On 2017.11.14 at 13:32 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 11:45 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > The hash_map interface is a lot more convenient than that of
> > hash_table for cases where it makes sense, but there hasn't been a way
> > to get the ggc_cache_remove behavior with a h
On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 11:45 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> The hash_map interface is a lot more convenient than that of
> hash_table for cases where it makes sense, but there hasn't been a way
> to get the ggc_cache_remove behavior with a hash_map. In other words,
> not marking elements during the
Ping.
On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 5:45 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> The hash_map interface is a lot more convenient than that of
> hash_table for cases where it makes sense, but there hasn't been a way
> to get the ggc_cache_remove behavior with a hash_map. In other words,
> not marking elements durin
The hash_map interface is a lot more convenient than that of
hash_table for cases where it makes sense, but there hasn't been a way
to get the ggc_cache_remove behavior with a hash_map. In other words,
not marking elements during the initial ggc marking phase, but maybe
marking them during the cle
