-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14.3k
[lldb] Fix RangeDataVector::CombineConsecutiveEntriesWithEqualData #127059
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -493,36 +493,27 @@ class RangeDataVector { | |
#ifdef ASSERT_RANGEMAP_ARE_SORTED | ||
assert(IsSorted()); | ||
#endif | ||
typename Collection::iterator pos; | ||
typename Collection::iterator end; | ||
typename Collection::iterator prev; | ||
bool can_combine = false; | ||
// First we determine if we can combine any of the Entry objects so we | ||
// don't end up allocating and making a new collection for no reason | ||
for (pos = m_entries.begin(), end = m_entries.end(), prev = end; pos != end; | ||
prev = pos++) { | ||
if (prev != end && prev->data == pos->data) { | ||
can_combine = true; | ||
break; | ||
} | ||
} | ||
auto first_intersect = std::adjacent_find( | ||
m_entries.begin(), m_entries.end(), [](const Entry &a, const Entry &b) { | ||
return a.DoesAdjoinOrIntersect(b) && a.data == b.data; | ||
}); | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. nit: an empty line before the if is in my opinion nicer to read There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. works for me. |
||
|
||
// We can combine at least one entry, then we make a new collection and | ||
// populate it accordingly, and then swap it into place. | ||
if (can_combine) { | ||
Collection minimal_ranges; | ||
for (pos = m_entries.begin(), end = m_entries.end(), prev = end; | ||
pos != end; prev = pos++) { | ||
if (prev != end && prev->data == pos->data) | ||
minimal_ranges.back().SetRangeEnd(pos->GetRangeEnd()); | ||
else | ||
minimal_ranges.push_back(*pos); | ||
} | ||
// Use the swap technique in case our new vector is much smaller. We must | ||
// swap when using the STL because std::vector objects never release or | ||
// reduce the memory once it has been allocated/reserved. | ||
m_entries.swap(minimal_ranges); | ||
if (first_intersect == m_entries.end()) | ||
return; | ||
|
||
// We can combine at least one entry. Make a new collection and populate it | ||
// accordingly, and then swap it into place. | ||
auto pos = std::next(first_intersect); | ||
Collection minimal_ranges(m_entries.begin(), pos); | ||
for (; pos != m_entries.end(); ++pos) { | ||
Entry &back = minimal_ranges.back(); | ||
if (back.DoesAdjoinOrIntersect(*pos) && back.data == pos->data) | ||
back.SetRangeEnd(std::max(back.GetRangeEnd(), pos->GetRangeEnd())); | ||
else | ||
minimal_ranges.push_back(*pos); | ||
} | ||
m_entries.swap(minimal_ranges); | ||
ComputeUpperBounds(0, m_entries.size()); | ||
} | ||
|
||
void Clear() { m_entries.clear(); } | ||
|
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is the equal check cheaper than the Intersect or Adjacency check? If so we should short circuit on equality before checking for an intersection
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Both of them are integer comparisons (in practice -- technically, this is a template so it could be whatever), so it really comes down to "which one is more likely to be false". I'm not sure about that, but I doubt this code is hot enough for it to matter. If we wanted to optimize this we could change the
DoesAdjoinOrIntersect
call tob.GetRangeBase() <= a.GetRangeEnd()
(since the other check inside that function is guaranteed to be true due to sorting).