[llvm-commits] Speeding up instruction selection

[Evan Cheng]

Ok, as long as the compile time increase isn't noticeable I won't  
sweat it. However, if it happens in a few places, perhaps we need (yet  
another) a getNode() that takes iterators and hide the copying inside  
that instead.

Evan

On Mar 28, 2008, at 3:14 PM, Dan Gohman wrote:

>
> On Mar 27, 2008, at 6:04 PM, Evan Cheng wrote:
>>
>>> OK. This is also my view. I don't think this temporary SmallVectors
>>> introduce any significant overhead. According to the profiler (I use
>>> Google profiling tools, which do not require to compile with -pg),
>>> they consume virtually no time and that even on big testcases,  
>>> that I
>>> like so much :-)
>>
>> I am not sure about this. For all the places which pass the list of
>> SDOperand's as a ptr to an array, you want to make a copy of it into
>> an array before passing it?
>
> Hi Evan,
>
> The patch is not changing every place that passes lists of
> SDOperands to make an extra copy. The copy is only needed when
> passing an existing node's operands, which is are now stored as
> an array of SDUse, to a function that wants an SDOperand array.
> And judging by Roman's current patch, this doesn't happen in
> all that many places.
>
> Dan
>
> _______________________________________________
> llvm-commits mailing list
> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits