[llvm] r244455 - Modify r244405 to clearer code, per David Blaikie suggestion.

[Yaron Keren via llvm-commits]

r244470+ r244471, thanks!


2015-08-10 20:30 GMT+03:00 David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>:

>
>
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Yaron Keren <yaron.keren at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Oops, I didn't notice that additional change when editing and did not
>> copy & paste.
>> Fixed + added comment in r244461.
>>
>
> It's still pretty easy to roll the two expressions in together (the
> comment helps, for sure - though it's easy to gloss over them). Doing all
> the variable initialization on the local, rather than in the vector, would
> separate the local creation from the push_back a lot & make this probably
> fine without a comment, I think.
>
> - David
>
>
>>
>>
>> 2015-08-10 19:46 GMT+03:00 David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 9:15 AM, Yaron Keren via llvm-commits <
>>> llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Author: yrnkrn
>>>> Date: Mon Aug 10 11:15:51 2015
>>>> New Revision: 244455
>>>>
>>>> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=244455&view=rev
>>>> Log:
>>>> Modify r244405 to clearer code, per David Blaikie suggestion.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Modified:
>>>>     llvm/trunk/tools/dsymutil/DwarfLinker.cpp
>>>>
>>>> Modified: llvm/trunk/tools/dsymutil/DwarfLinker.cpp
>>>> URL:
>>>> http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/tools/dsymutil/DwarfLinker.cpp?rev=244455&r1=244454&r2=244455&view=diff
>>>>
>>>> ==============================================================================
>>>> --- llvm/trunk/tools/dsymutil/DwarfLinker.cpp (original)
>>>> +++ llvm/trunk/tools/dsymutil/DwarfLinker.cpp Mon Aug 10 11:15:51 2015
>>>> @@ -2884,8 +2884,8 @@ void DwarfLinker::patchLineTableForUnit(
>>>>        if (StopAddress != -1ULL && !Seq.empty()) {
>>>>          // Insert end sequence row with the computed end address, but
>>>>          // the same line as the previous one.
>>>> -        Seq.reserve(Seq.size() + 1);
>>>> -        Seq.emplace_back(Seq.back());
>>>> +        auto NextLine = Seq.back();
>>>> +        Seq.emplace_back(NextLine);
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't think there's any benefit to emplace_back here since there are
>>> no explicit conversions required. I'd probably usse push_back - and this
>>> still seems like it'd be easy for someone to just decide to fold the two
>>> statements together & create the original bug. The suggestion I was making
>>> was to avoid doing the initialization (the following several assignment
>>> statements \/ ) on the container element itself, but do it on the local.
>>> Then push that local onto the sequence - that seems less subtle (or at
>>> least it hides it better by not making it look like a trivial cleanup to
>>> collapse two expressions would be an improvement).
>>>
>>>
>>>>          Seq.back().Address = StopAddress;
>>>>          Seq.back().EndSequence = 1;
>>>>          Seq.back().PrologueEnd = 0;
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> llvm-commits mailing list
>>>> llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
>>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20150810/e7f9787d/attachment.html>