public inbox for gcc@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
To: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>
Cc: Marek Polacek <polacek@redhat.com>, GCC Mailing List <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Usage of the C++ stdlib unordered_map in GCC
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2022 10:35:08 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CADzB+2=6OAoqjacH+VWPo--W=UYvrB-c5385=A_d0f1x5mkm=Q@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAH6eHdTDjA=-06biuQWkD+ZvFO1mz9xXQ4FTpa3ymw22PEr+0Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 5:38 AM Jonathan Wakely via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 at 21:08, Marek Polacek via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 09:57:45PM +0200, Tim Lange wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I was preparing a patch for GCC and used the unordered_map from the C++
> > > stdlib in my patch. Later on, I noticed that it is used nowhere else
> inside
> > > GCC except for some files in the go frontend.
> > >
> > > I wondered, now that building GCC requires a C++11 host compiler,
> whether
> > > there is a consensus on which data structure implementation is
> preferred.
> > > Should I rather use a hash_map instead of an unordered_map or is it on
> my
> > > side to decide which one I choose?
> >
> > I think you're probably better off using a hash_map; std::unordered_map
> > has efficiency issues as described in
> > https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2020/p2028r0.pdf
>
> I assume you mean the comments on page 6. Does GCC's hash_map actually
> use open addressing and probing to deal with collisions? Do we want to
> be able to change the hash function or use per-compilation salts?
> (Would that break PCH?) If not, I don't see why it would be any better
> when considering the metrics that paper is referring to. It might be
> better based on other properties that benefit GCC, but the case
> against std::unordered_map is often overstated.
>
> If the question was whether to prefer std::unordered_map or
> absl::node_hash_map then I would agree that std::unordered_map is a
> bad choice. But that's not the question.
>

Generally we want to use the GCC hash_map because it works with GCC garbage
collection (and PCH).  Is that not relevant to your patch?

Jason

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
To: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>
Cc: Marek Polacek <polacek@redhat.com>, GCC Mailing List <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Usage of the C++ stdlib unordered_map in GCC
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2022 10:35:08 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CADzB+2=6OAoqjacH+VWPo--W=UYvrB-c5385=A_d0f1x5mkm=Q@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
Message-ID: <20220831143508.6WEtiuHW4sWmMDm3MsB3lI7Qc0Wm32BTeO6Y4-TrzZs@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAH6eHdTDjA=-06biuQWkD+ZvFO1mz9xXQ4FTpa3ymw22PEr+0Q@mail.gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1749 bytes --]

On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 5:38 AM Jonathan Wakely via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 at 21:08, Marek Polacek via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 09:57:45PM +0200, Tim Lange wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I was preparing a patch for GCC and used the unordered_map from the C++
> > > stdlib in my patch. Later on, I noticed that it is used nowhere else
> inside
> > > GCC except for some files in the go frontend.
> > >
> > > I wondered, now that building GCC requires a C++11 host compiler,
> whether
> > > there is a consensus on which data structure implementation is
> preferred.
> > > Should I rather use a hash_map instead of an unordered_map or is it on
> my
> > > side to decide which one I choose?
> >
> > I think you're probably better off using a hash_map; std::unordered_map
> > has efficiency issues as described in
> > https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2020/p2028r0.pdf
>
> I assume you mean the comments on page 6. Does GCC's hash_map actually
> use open addressing and probing to deal with collisions? Do we want to
> be able to change the hash function or use per-compilation salts?
> (Would that break PCH?) If not, I don't see why it would be any better
> when considering the metrics that paper is referring to. It might be
> better based on other properties that benefit GCC, but the case
> against std::unordered_map is often overstated.
>
> If the question was whether to prefer std::unordered_map or
> absl::node_hash_map then I would agree that std::unordered_map is a
> bad choice. But that's not the question.
>

Generally we want to use the GCC hash_map because it works with GCC garbage
collection (and PCH).  Is that not relevant to your patch?

Jason

  reply	other threads:[~2022-08-31 14:35 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-08-30 19:57 Tim Lange
2022-08-30 20:07 ` Marek Polacek
2022-08-31  9:37   ` Jonathan Wakely
2022-08-31 14:35     ` Jason Merrill [this message]
2022-08-31 14:35       ` Jason Merrill
2022-08-31 15:22       ` Tim Lange

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='CADzB+2=6OAoqjacH+VWPo--W=UYvrB-c5385=A_d0f1x5mkm=Q@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=jason@redhat.com \
    --cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=jwakely.gcc@gmail.com \
    --cc=polacek@redhat.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).