george.burgess.iv added inline comments. ================ Comment at: lib/Sema/SemaOverload.cpp:12996 @@ +12995,3 @@ + // selection expression. + std::vector<Expr *> AssocExprs(GSE->getAssocExprs().vec()); + unsigned ResultIdx = GSE->getResultIndex(); ---------------- aaron.ballman wrote: > dblaikie wrote: > > george.burgess.iv wrote: > > > Is there a reason this isn't a `SmallVector` instead? > > Another note on this - we should generally prefer copy init over direct > > init (less power, less responsibility/easier to read): > > > > std::vector<Expr*> AssocExprs = GSE->getAssocExprs().vec(); > > > > (& as for George's question: since ArrayRef::vec returns std::vector, it's > > cheaper to store in a std::vector (by move) than to make a copy into a > > SmallVector) > Yeah, I originally used std::vector<> because of ArrayRef's interface. I am > happy to go either route, depending on preference, as I doubt this will wind > up on the hot path with any regularity. > as for George's question: since ArrayRef::vec returns std::vector, it's > cheaper to store in a std::vector (by move) than to make a copy into a > SmallVector
I was thinking that we would end up using the `SmallVector(begin(), end())` ctor instead, so the vector temp wouldn't be needed. :) Regardless, it was just a nit, so I'm perfectly happy if it stays a `vector`. > I doubt this will wind up on the hot path with any regularity Agreed. https://reviews.llvm.org/D24152 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
