[PATCH] D18281: [SetVector] Add erase() method

David Blaikie via llvm-commits llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
Thu Mar 24 11:05:45 PDT 2016

dblaikie added inline comments.

Comment at: include/llvm/ADT/SetVector.h:159-165
@@ +158,9 @@
+  iterator erase(iterator I) {
+    const key_type &V = *I;
+    typename vector_type::iterator VI =
+        std::find(vector_.begin(), vector_.end(), V);
+    assert(VI != vector_.end() && "Iterator to erase is out of bounds.");
+    assert(set_.count(V) && "Corrupted SetVector instances!");
+    set_.erase(V);
+    return vector_.erase(VI);
+  }
This seems like it's doing extra work to find the element in the vector, given an iterator in the vector to begin with - right?

Should just be:

  return vector_.erase(I);

or am I missing something? (don't mind if you keep the assert(set_.count(V)))

Comment at: unittests/ADT/SetVectorTest.cpp:19
@@ +18,3 @@
+void checkEraseAndIteratorsForSetVector() {
+  SetVector<int> S;
I'd just make these two named functions into test functions - rather than having the test function call them.

Also, seems like these tests are testing a whole bunch of other stuff (which, granted, isn't tested elsewhere - since SetVector had no unit tests - but if it's going to be tested should probably be tested separately (& in a separate commit))

So I'd probably simplify these tests down quite a bit:

  TEST(SetVector, EraseTest) {
    SetVector<int> S;

    auto I = S.erase(std::next(S.begin()));

    // Test that the returned iterator is the expected one-after-erase
    // and the size/contents is the expected sequence {0, 2}
    EXPECT_EQ(std::next(S.begin()), I);
    EXPECT_EQ(2u, S.size());
    EXPECT_EQ(0, S.front());
    EXPECT_EQ(2, S.back());

& I wouldn't bother testing SmallSetVector - you only changed SetVector, there's no need to test every possible instantiation of it.


More information about the llvm-commits mailing list