higher-performance wrote:
I just realized there is another optimization we could do in `push_back`
(similar motivation as what @erichkeane mentioned
[here](#discussion_r1982274548), but different):
We could avoid the duplication check in `push_back`, and defer it to the
`contains()`/`view()` accessors, thus making `push_back` simply do `if
(!Value.getMemoizationData()) { ... }`. If we do such a thing, then we'd
probably want to amortize it so that the number of unprocessed entries doesn't
grow unboundedly. We could keep the number of unprocessed elements within (say)
25% of the size of the processed elements.
Thoughts on this? I'm inclined to give it a try to see if it's worth the code
complexity.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/129934
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
