In all cases except for this optimistic attempt to reuse memory, the
moved-from TinyPtrVector was left `empty()` at the end of this
assignment. Though using a container after it's been moved from can be a
bit sketchy, it's probably best to just be consistent here.
llvm-svn: 320408
Removed some unused headers, replaced some headers with forward class declarations.
Found using simple scripts like this one:
clear && ack --cpp -l '#include "llvm/ADT/IndexedMap.h"' | xargs grep -L 'IndexedMap[<]' | xargs grep -n --color=auto 'IndexedMap'
Patch by Eugene Kosov <claprix@yandex.ru>
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D19219
From: Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini@apple.com>
llvm-svn: 266595
Rationale:
1) This was the name in the comment block. ;]
2) It matches Clang's __has_feature naming convention.
3) It matches other compiler-feature-test conventions.
Sorry for the noise. =]
I've also switch the comment block to use a \brief tag and not duplicate
the name.
llvm-svn: 168996
TinyPtrVector. With these, it is sufficiently functional for my more
normal / pedestrian uses.
I've not included some r-value reference stuff here because the value
type for a TinyPtrVector is, necessarily, just a pointer.
I've added tests that cover the basic behavior of these routines, but
they aren't as comprehensive as I'd like. In particular, they don't
really test the iterator semantics as thoroughly as they should. Maybe
some brave soul will feel enterprising and flesh them out. ;]
llvm-svn: 161104
for this class. These tests exercise most of the basic properties, but
the API for TinyPtrVector is very strange currently. My plan is to start
fleshing out the API to match that of SmallVector, but I wanted a test
for what is there first.
Sadly, it doesn't look reasonable to just re-use the SmallVector tests,
as this container can only ever store pointers, and much of the
SmallVector testing is to get construction and destruction right.
Just to get this basic test working, I had to add value_type to the
interface.
While here I found a subtle bug in the combination of 'erase', 'begin',
and 'end'. Both 'begin' and 'end' wanted to use a null pointer to
indicate the "end" iterator of an empty vector, regardless of whether
there is actually a vector allocated or the pointer union is null.
Everything else was fine with this except for erase. If you erase the
last element of a vector after it has held more than one element, we
return the end iterator of the underlying SmallVector which need not be
a null pointer. Instead, simply use the pointer, and poniter + size()
begin/end definitions in the tiny case, and delegate to the inner vector
whenever it is present.
llvm-svn: 161024
George Burgess IV