On 08/11/2009 11:20 AM, Adam Butcher wrote:
Ah okay. Would it be worth enhancing the tree-vec interface to include block reallocation with size doubling and end marking to allow for more efficient reallocation?
I don't think so; I expect that would end up being less space-efficient, since in most cases we know in advance exactly how much space we need.
Feel free to add a realloc_tree_vec function to gcc/tree.c, though.
Such a structural change maybe hidden by the macro front-end. I wonder how many uses of make_tree_vec don't ggc_free their previous tree-vec when using it in a 'realloc' way.
That just means they'll live until the next GC pass, not a big deal. Jason
