[llvm-dev] SmallString + raw_svector_ostream combination should be more efficient

[Yaron Keren via llvm-dev]

Thanks, r244928 (clang + llvm), r244935+6 (lldb).


2015-08-13 20:56 GMT+03:00 David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>:

>
>
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 7:03 AM, Yaron Keren via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> Ok, one more issue. I've removed the no-op resync() method and now
>> getting rid of numerous raw_ostream::flush() calls. These were required
>> before but now will never do anything but will waste runtime discovering
>> that.
>> To find raw_svector_ostream::flush() calls speficially I locally shadowed
>> raw_ostream:flush() with a deleted flush():
>>
>> class raw_svector_ostream {
>> ...
>> public:
>> ...
>>   void flush() = delete;
>> };
>>
>> so any direct use of raw_svector_ostream::flush() fails compilation.
>> Calling raw_ostream:flush() itself would never reach the deleted function
>> as it's not virtual, it will continue to function as before.
>>
>> To explicitly prevent calling raw_svector_ostream::flush(), is that a
>> good solution to commit?
>>
>
> Seems reasonable to me - an alternative (that's probably worse) might be
> "using raw_ostream::flush" in the private section of raw_svector_ostream.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2015-08-13 16:53 GMT+03:00 Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com>:
>>
>>> On 13 August 2015 at 04:17, Yaron Keren <yaron.keren at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > r244870 (with the change you requested), thanks!
>>> >
>>> > I initially placed the virtual function in header since they were
>>> > one-liners.
>>> > The coding standards say that an anchor() function should be supplied,
>>> which
>>> > was indeed missing.  Other than required anchor function, why should
>>> the
>>> > virtual functions go in the .cpp?
>>>
>>> Just because there is no advantage for most virtual methods to be in the
>>> .h.
>>>
>>> > Should I move the empty raw_svector_ostream destructor to the .cpp
>>> file too
>>> > as well?
>>>
>>> Maybe. Destructors are the one exception since base class destructors
>>> call them non-virtually. If the class is final we can move them.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Rafael
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150813/67b6e54d/attachment.html>