Re: debug-early branch merged into mainline

[Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 10:25 PM, Aldy Hernandez <aldyh@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 06/08/2015 02:59 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On June 8, 2015 7:14:19 PM GMT+02:00, Aldy Hernandez <aldyh@redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 06/08/2015 09:30 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Aldy Hernandez <aldyh@redhat.com>
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 06/08/2015 04:26 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:23 AM, Aldy Hernandez <aldyh@redhat.com>
>
>
>>> What about if the comparison routine gets a named section and an
>>> unnamed
>>> section?  How to compare?  That's why I was giving priority to one over
>>>
>>> the other originally, but I didn't know about problematic qsort
>>> implementations.
>>
>>
>> Obviously unnamed and a named section can be sorted like you did in the
>> original patch.
>
>
> Obviously I'm not understanding :).
>
> How about this?

Ok with adding

v.create (object_block_htab->elements ());

and using v.quick_push () (avoids re-allocations)

and with adding a

v.release ();

at the end of the function.  And re-writing

+  return f1 < f2 ? -1 : (f1 > f2 ? 1 : 0);

to

   if (f1 == f2)
     return 0;
   return f1 < f2 ? -1 : 1;

Thanks,
Richard.

> Tested on x86-64 and ppc64le.
>
> Aldy