On Wed, 2006-05-31 at 16:17, Chris Lattner wrote:
> On Wed, 31 May 2006, Reid Spencer wrote:
> > Wouldn't uint32_t be sufficient for these? I can't see anyone having
> > more than 4 billion name collisions. And it reduce a little arithmetic
> > cost on 32-bit platforms.
>
> Fine with me either way. Collision handling code isn't going to amazingly
> suffer from having to increment a 64-bit value on 32-bit hosts, but utostr
> is a little more expensive for 64-bit values I guess.
I almost made it uint32_t. I don't think it matters.
Andrew
> -Chris
>
> > On Wed, 2006-05-31 at 15:18 -0500, Andrew Lenharth wrote:
> >> Log message:
> >>
> >> Fix build breakage on alpha, without causing it on x86. as a bonus, all
> >> platforms can invent the same number of unique names now
> >> Index: llvm/include/llvm/ValueSymbolTable.h
> >> diff -u llvm/include/llvm/ValueSymbolTable.h:1.1
> >> llvm/include/llvm/ValueSymbolTable.h:1.2
> >> --- llvm/include/llvm/ValueSymbolTable.h:1.1 Tue Jan 10 03:51:48 2006
> >> +++ llvm/include/llvm/ValueSymbolTable.h Wed May 31 15:18:28 2006
> >> @@ -127,7 +127,7 @@
> >> /// @{
> >> private:
> >> ValueMap vmap; ///< The map that holds the symbol
> >> table.
> >> - mutable unsigned long LastUnique; ///< Counter for tracking unique names
> >> + mutable uint64_t LastUnique; ///< Counter for tracking unique names
> >>
> >
> >
>
> -Chris
--
http://www.lenharth.org/~andrewl/
And without software to do something useful with all that hardware, the
hardware's nothing more than a really complicated space heater.
--Neal Stephenson
_______________________________________________
llvm-commits mailing list
llvm-commits@cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
