From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr1-x434.google.com (mail-wr1-x434.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::434]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6C2B63858413; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 17:55:35 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 6C2B63858413 Received: by mail-wr1-x434.google.com with SMTP id c4so28532016wrd.9; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 09:55:35 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=WCjRvF+kPXyP71ScCbISCLouMWu9+WXzJeigLjKUWcM=; b=eMIEzX8xoIpxWrZDRAbg2kiTv9MB+K5AhVb847TPBWVY7cpHkRIfrN9oEAF3xQz5Hx Ik9KIV4nGxIgb1gNzmEtSyngrlZpZVZ3aWy+CaizDYPoXxJW6E5aXYtmOnXenBCk980B emcQv+QObfGFIyw5cbNTL+jYP9cA4s9t/rDqAYITBArA1fd61X1tiFw69ib5qxsj9IeU TnpnsrahPZlNYEnD71eAAPD9hmUuLvmfqCa+G4fc+0x1nQl57AHiXVZZmGrsEsvtNLvw i7cCU8dwUoIfpKM9KdSfxJGt/rGWBNRvb3FS5dymXsYsaeQRwQ7Pzk0zdse+C9pmU669 BFWw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530wd+1Ct63WQPDGByASbc13V5CSlyW4QNlT6hToirHE+4nPrdb7 wJ7+3CmDLYn7ZjmAm/22A5eWClVHDNg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwzZ5udNYQgCb2fQ6dvJnEZBUvd9U9tybZqbrAZcMjogvPPivYi+uQcKwHjh8acJ8Yu2riMoA== X-Received: by 2002:adf:f944:: with SMTP id q4mr3490213wrr.345.1640109333990; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 09:55:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.22.7.50] ([109.190.253.11]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id q13sm15143518wrr.64.2021.12.21.09.55.32 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 21 Dec 2021 09:55:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH][Hashtable 6/6] PR 68303 small size optimization To: =?UTF-8?Q?Daniel_Kr=c3=bcgler?= Cc: "libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org" , gcc-patches References: <88d3aa39-2146-3ea5-8bb2-a4d9b70accbd@gmail.com> <20200717125809.GC2827066@redhat.com> <0a5b6bcb-6475-2674-adfb-23f6793bfefc@gmail.com> <1491e266-fb74-dd9c-9955-8a7dd0334bb4@gmail.com> <73be2079-5046-c06f-f144-1af85052fc50@gmail.com> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Fran=c3=a7ois_Dumont?= Message-ID: <22461d18-d2a0-d906-4b20-6b95cf036bde@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2021 18:55:31 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: fr X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, FREEMAIL_FROM, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_BARRACUDACENTRAL, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Libstdc++ mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2021 17:55:38 -0000 On 21/12/21 7:28 am, Daniel Krügler wrote: > Am Di., 21. Dez. 2021 um 07:08 Uhr schrieb François Dumont via > Libstdc++ : >> Hi >> >> Is there a chance for this patch to be integrated for next gcc >> release ? >> >> François >> > No counterargument for the acceptance, but: Shouldn't > __small_size_threshold() be a noexcept function? > > - Daniel Could it enhance code generation ? I could make it depends on _Hashtable_hash_traits<>::__small_size_threshold() noexcept qualification if so. But I was hoping that the compiler to detect all that itself. Otherwise no, it do not have to be noexcept as it is used to avoid hasher invocation in some situations and hasher is not noexcept constraint. At least I do not need to static_assert this.