<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Ted Kremenek <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kremenek@apple.com" target="_blank">kremenek@apple.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div class="im"><div><div>On Aug 28, 2012, at 7:23 PM, Richard Trieu <<a href="mailto:rtrieu@google.com" target="_blank">rtrieu@google.com</a>> wrote:</div><br><blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:medium;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:-webkit-auto;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">If I read these numbers correctly, the hash table algorithm (with O(n) performance) takes about 1.6-2% percent more than the control for runs 1-3, and hardly anything noticeable for the clang code base.  Were runs 1-3 used in your earlier measurements,</div>
</blockquote><div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:medium;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:-webkit-auto;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
Yes, these are the same runs I have been using.  I earlier did some more runs with smaller files, but the improvements to this warning made the differences too small to detect, so they were dropped.</div><div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:medium;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:-webkit-auto;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
 </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:medium;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:-webkit-auto;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">where the sorting-based approach took about ~4% longer (or is that not the correct number)?</div></blockquote><div style="font-family:Helvetica;font-size:medium;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:-webkit-auto;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px">
That is correct.  The fastest sorting-based reached 4% difference.</div></blockquote></div><br></div><div>Ok, sounds great.  The patch looks fantastic to me now, and the performance is good.  I'd be happy to see this go in.</div>
</div></blockquote></div><br><div>Committed at revision 162938.</div>