[llvm-dev] RFC: Should SmallVectors be smaller?
Dean Michael Berris via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Thu Jun 21 19:53:24 PDT 2018
> On 22 Jun 2018, at 12:30, Bekket McClane <bekket.mcclane at gmail.com> wrote:
> To Dean,
> I think Duncan’s approach prohibit any usage of Small after the capacity grow over SmallCapacity.
> So when the capacity exceed SmallCapacity, one should:
> 1. Allocate memory on heap
> 2. Copy data from Small to that chunk
> 3. Assign pointer of that chunk to Large
> As long as you always access Large after growth, there would be no data lose.
Ah, yes. That makes sense.
I’m curious to see, like Chris, what the benchmarks say about this alternative approach.
More information about the llvm-dev