forked from OSchip/llvm-project
203cbe7f6f
There are two main reasons why a linked-list makes sense for `DIEValueList`. 1. We want `DIE` to be on a `BumpPtrAllocator` to improve teardown efficiency. Making `DIEValueList` array-based would make that much more complicated. 2. The singly-linked list is fairly memory efficient. The histogram [1] shows that most DIEs have relatively few values, so we often pay less than the 2/3-pointer static overhead of a vector. Furthermore, we don't know ahead of time exactly how many values a `DIE` needs, so a vector-like scheme will on average over-allocate by ~50%. As it happens, that's the same memory overhead as the linked list node. [1]: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2015-May/085910.html The comment I added to the code is a little more succinct, but I think it's enough to give the idea. llvm-svn: 240868 |
||
---|---|---|
.. | ||
llvm | ||
llvm-c |