From: Michael Matz <matz@suse.de>
To: Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de>
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>,
law@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] Improve get_qualified_type linear list walk
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2019 11:55:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.21.1904171137230.8064@wotan.suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.2.20.1904171234270.27537@zhemvz.fhfr.qr>
Hi,
On Wed, 17 Apr 2019, Richard Biener wrote:
> for the C++ FE the LRU cache effectively moves the unqualified
> variants first in the variant list. Since we always first
> build the unqualified variants before the qualified ones
> the unqualified ones tend to be at the end of the list. That's
> clearly bad for the C++ pattern of repeatedly looking up the
> unqualified type variant from a type. Of course a direct
> shortcut would be much cheaper here (but it obviously isn't
> the main variant due to TYPE_NAME differences).
>
> So do you think the change to get_qualified_type is OK? Or
> do we absolutely want to avoid changing the variant list from
> a function like this?
I think changing the variant list in this accessor should be okay. For it
not to be okay some callers would have to remember a particular subset of
that list and also care about the order of that subset. That would be
fragile no matter what.
I had the additional idea to only move the non-qualified variant to the
front, i.e. not really LRU. By that we would slowly establish the
invariant that unqualified variants are early in the list; or
alternatively add a combination of build_variant_type_copy+set_type_quals
which would establish that invariant directly. But unlike a real LRU
cache it's harder to see if this brings similar benefits as the scheme is
then lopsided towards the specific case of looking up unqualified
variants.
Ciao,
Michael.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-04-17 11:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-04-16 13:01 Richard Biener
2019-04-16 16:14 ` Michael Matz
2019-04-16 16:21 ` Jakub Jelinek
2019-04-16 17:47 ` Richard Biener
2019-04-17 12:10 ` Michael Matz
2019-04-16 17:00 ` Richard Biener
2019-04-17 11:04 ` Richard Biener
2019-04-17 11:55 ` Michael Matz [this message]
2019-04-17 18:25 ` Jeff Law
2019-04-17 20:36 ` Marc Glisse
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=alpine.LSU.2.21.1904171137230.8064@wotan.suse.de \
--to=matz@suse.de \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=jakub@redhat.com \
--cc=law@redhat.com \
--cc=rguenther@suse.de \
/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).