On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 8:50 PM Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/1/19 3:34 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 8:33 PM Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> My comments accidentally got lost.
> >>
> >> Several places in the front-end (and elsewhere) use the same lazy
> >> allocation pattern for hash_maps, and this patch replaces them with
> >> hash_map_safe_* functions like vec_safe_*. They don't provide a way
> >> to specify an initial size, but I don't think that's a significant
> >> issue.
> >>
> >> Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. OK for trunk?
> >
> > You are using create_ggc but the new functions do not indicate that ggc
> > allocation is done.
> > It's then also incomplete with not having a non-ggc variant
> > of them? Maybe I'm missing something.
>
> Ah, I had been thinking that this lazy pattern would only be used with
> ggc, but I see that I was wrong. How's this?
>
> Incidentally, now I see another C++11 feature I'd like to be able to
> use: default template arguments for function templates.
I presume
template<bool ggc, typename K, typename V, typename H>
inline bool
hash_map_safe_put (hash_map<K,V,H> *&h, const K& k, const V& v, size_t
size = default_hash_map_size)
{
return hash_map_maybe_create<ggc> (h, size)->put (k, v);
}
was deemed to ugly? IMHO instantiating the templates for different sizes
is unwanted compile-time overhead (plus not being able to use
a default value makes non-default values creep into the code-base?).
I'd have OKed a variant like above, so - would that work for you
(change hash_map_maybe_create as well then, of course).
Thanks,
Richard.
