danlark marked an inline comment as done.
danlark added inline comments.
================
Comment at: libcxx/trunk/include/__split_buffer:201
__alloc_rr& __a = this->__alloc();
+ pointer __to_be_end = this->__end_;
do
----------------
hiraditya wrote:
> danlark wrote:
> > lichray wrote:
> > > mclow.lists wrote:
> > > > I have been asked specifically by the optimizer folks to NOT do things
> > > > like this in libc++, but rather to file bugs against the optimizer.
> > > >
> > > > And I have done so for this exact case:
> > > > https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35637
> > > From the thread I didn't see that the compiler side asked you not to do
> > > so.
> > >
> > > And I disagree with the view. libc++ shouldn't *wait* for compilers,
> > > because we don't dictate users' compiler choices. This change doesn't
> > > make libc++ worse to coming compilers, and makes libc++ better on
> > > existing compilers, so what benefit we get by not approving this?
> > So, what is the status? Are we waiting for the compiler code-gen fix?
> >
> > At Yandex we are using patched version like half a year or more.
> >
> > https://github.com/catboost/catboost/blob/master/contrib/libs/cxxsupp/libcxx/include/vector#L995
> It would be great to get this patch in. Waiting for compiler for this
> optimization seems overkill.
It was separately submitted by the libcxx mainterner in July 2019 --
https://reviews.llvm.org/rL367183
Repository:
rCXX libc++
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D44823/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D44823
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
