clayborg added a comment. In D56425#1350253 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D56425#1350253>, @JDevlieghere wrote:
> In D56425#1350236 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D56425#1350236>, @JDevlieghere > wrote: > > > In D56425#1350234 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D56425#1350234>, @clayborg > > wrote: > > > > > If we keep the list sorted we might be able to improve finding > > > breakpoints by ID, but that can be done if we need to. > > > BreakpointList::Add would need to insert it sorted, then we can get > > > better than O(n) performance on FindBreakpointByID and Remove (anything > > > that was using find_if when it is searching for a breakpoint by ID). > > > > > > I'll do this as a follow-up. > > > On second thought, maybe it's not such a good idea after all. Internal > breakpoints are negative so if we keep the vector sorted we'd always insert > them at the front of the vector. We could change strategies based on whether > the list is internal or not, but that seems overkill, especially given the > code is not that hot as Vedant pointed out. No worries. This is why I mentioned "if we need to". Fine to wait until we need to do this for some reason that proves to be an efficiency issue Repository: rLLDB LLDB CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D56425/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D56425 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
