From: Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
To: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com>
Cc: Andrew MacLeod via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,
Martin Jambor <mjambor@suse.cz>,
Aldy Hernandez <aldyh@redhat.com>, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com>,
Andrew MacLeod <amacleod@redhat.com>,
Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@arm.com>
Subject: Re: std:vec for classes with constructor?
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2020 12:31:06 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAFiYyc3v_kKH=RDxoygn2gAyfz_pjpouD=aC45RAXCoGxdw6DA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200806101917.GU3400@redhat.com>
On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 12:19 PM Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 06/08/20 06:16 +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> >Andrew MacLeod via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
> >> On 8/5/20 12:54 PM, Richard Biener via Gcc-patches wrote:
> >>> On August 5, 2020 5:09:19 PM GMT+02:00, Martin Jambor <mjambor@suse.cz> wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, Jul 31 2020, Aldy Hernandez via Gcc-patches wrote:
> >>>> [...]
> >>>>
> >>>>> * ipa-cp changes from vec<value_range> to std::vec<value_range>.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We are using std::vec to ensure constructors are run, which they
> >>>> aren't
> >>>>> in our internal vec<> implementation. Although we usually steer away
> >>>>> from using std::vec because of interactions with our GC system,
> >>>>> ipcp_param_lattices is only live within the pass and allocated with
> >>>> calloc.
> >>>> Ummm... I did not object but I will save the URL of this message in the
> >>>> archive so that I can waive it in front of anyone complaining why I
> >>>> don't use our internal vec's in IPA data structures.
> >>>>
> >>>> But it actually raises a broader question: was this supposed to be an
> >>>> exception, allowed only not to complicate the irange patch further, or
> >>>> will this be generally accepted thing to do when someone wants to have
> >>>> a
> >>>> vector of constructed items?
> >>> It's definitely not what we want. You have to find another solution to this problem.
> >>>
> >>> Richard.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Why isn't it what we want?
> >>
> >> This is a small vector local to the pass so it doesn't interfere with
> >> our PITA GTY.
> >> The class is pretty straightforward, but we do need a constructor to
> >> initialize the pointer and the max-size field. There is no allocation
> >> done per element, so a small number of elements have a couple of fields
> >> initialized per element. We'd have to loop to do that anyway.
> >>
> >> GCC's vec<> does not provide he ability to run a constructor, std::vec
> >> does.
> >
> >I realise you weren't claiming otherwise, but: that could be fixed :-)
>
> It really should be.
>
> Artificial limitations like that are just a booby trap for the unwary.
It's probably also historic because we couldn't even implement
the case of re-allocation correctly without std::move, could we?
> >> I quizzed some libstdc++ folks, and there has been a lot of
> >> optimizations done on std::vec over the last few years,.. They think its
> >> pretty good now, and we were encouraged to use it.
> >>
> >> We can visit the question tho... What is the rationale for not using
> >> std::vec in the compiler? We currently use std::swap, std:pair,
> >> std::map, std::sort, and a few others.
> >> is there some aspect of using std::vec I am not aware of that makes it
> >> something we need to avoid?
> >
> >One reason to prefer vec<> for general interfaces is that it
> >works with auto_vec<…, N>, making it possible to pre-allocate a
> >reasonably-sized buffer on the stack without needing a round-trip
> >through the allocators.
> >
> >FWIW, that isn't simply a GCC thing. LLVM (which is obviously much
> >more C++-intensive than GCC) still makes heavy use of SmallVector for
> >automatic variables. And the reason we have things like memory_block.h
> >is that malloc did used to show up high in profiles.
>
> Yes, LLVM's SmallVector is very useful. You can achieve a similar
> thing with a custom allocator in std::vector, but it's more cumbersome
> and it alters the type from std::vector<X> to std::vector<X, Y>.
>
> The beauty of the LLVM design is the common base class for
> SmallVector<T, N> is the same for all N, so you can pass it to APIs
> that don't care about the size and just work with the base interface.
>
> >(FWIW, I'm not saying that's an argument in favour of avoiding
> >std::vector completely. It's just a reason why it might not always
> >be the right choice.)
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Richard
> >
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-08-06 10:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 54+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-07-31 21:44 [patch] multi-range implementation for value_range (irange) Aldy Hernandez
2020-08-05 14:27 ` Gerald Pfeifer
2020-08-05 15:45 ` Aldy Hernandez
2020-08-05 22:43 ` Gerald Pfeifer
2020-08-06 4:00 ` Richard Sandiford
2020-08-10 3:42 ` Martin Liška
2020-08-10 7:44 ` Aldy Hernandez
2020-08-10 10:22 ` Gerald Pfeifer
2020-08-10 10:30 ` Martin Liška
2020-08-10 11:03 ` Aldy Hernandez
2020-08-05 15:09 ` std:vec for classes with constructor? (Was: Re: [patch] multi-range implementation for value_range (irange)) Martin Jambor
2020-08-05 15:41 ` Aldy Hernandez
2020-08-05 16:55 ` Richard Biener
2020-08-24 21:53 ` Jeff Law
2020-08-24 22:03 ` Andrew MacLeod
2020-08-05 16:54 ` Richard Biener
2020-08-06 1:07 ` Andrew MacLeod
2020-08-06 5:16 ` std:vec for classes with constructor? Richard Sandiford
2020-08-06 10:19 ` Jonathan Wakely
2020-08-06 10:31 ` Richard Biener [this message]
2020-08-06 10:48 ` Jonathan Wakely
2020-08-06 14:17 ` Aldy Hernandez
2020-08-06 14:35 ` Richard Biener
2020-08-06 14:59 ` Aldy Hernandez
2020-08-06 16:30 ` Jonathan Wakely
2020-08-06 17:58 ` Aldy Hernandez
2020-08-06 19:24 ` Jonathan Wakely
2020-08-07 6:48 ` Richard Biener
2020-08-07 7:57 ` Jonathan Wakely
2020-08-07 8:22 ` Richard Biener
2020-08-07 8:34 ` Jonathan Wakely
2020-08-07 8:54 ` Richard Biener
2020-08-07 8:55 ` Jakub Jelinek
2020-08-07 9:17 ` Jonathan Wakely
2020-08-07 18:04 ` Aldy Hernandez
2020-08-07 18:33 ` Jakub Jelinek
2020-08-10 12:57 ` Aldy Hernandez
2020-08-10 13:05 ` Aldy Hernandez
2020-08-10 18:03 ` Jakub Jelinek
2020-08-10 13:51 ` Jakub Jelinek
2020-08-10 16:58 ` Richard Biener
2020-08-10 17:18 ` Jakub Jelinek
2020-08-13 11:38 ` r11-2663 causes static_assert failure (was: Re: std:vec for classes with constructor?) Tobias Burnus
2020-08-13 11:52 ` Jakub Jelinek
2020-08-13 12:06 ` r11-2663 causes static_assert failure Tobias Burnus
2020-08-13 12:25 ` Jakub Jelinek
2020-08-13 12:40 ` Jakub Jelinek
2020-08-13 12:46 ` Iain Sandoe
2020-08-13 12:55 ` Iain Sandoe
2020-08-13 13:04 ` Jakub Jelinek
2020-08-13 13:00 ` Jakub Jelinek
2020-08-06 6:57 ` std:vec for classes with constructor? (Was: Re: [patch] multi-range implementation for value_range (irange)) Richard Biener
2020-08-06 10:23 ` Jonathan Wakely
2020-08-06 11:03 ` Aldy Hernandez
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAFiYyc3v_kKH=RDxoygn2gAyfz_pjpouD=aC45RAXCoGxdw6DA@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=richard.guenther@gmail.com \
--cc=aldyh@redhat.com \
--cc=amacleod@redhat.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=jwakely@redhat.com \
--cc=law@redhat.com \
--cc=mjambor@suse.cz \
--cc=richard.sandiford@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).