dblaikie added inline comments.
================ Comment at: clang/lib/Tooling/NodeIntrospection.cpp:60 + if (LHS.first == RHS.first) + return LHS.second->name() < RHS.second->name(); + return LHS.first < RHS.first; ---------------- njames93 wrote: > dblaikie wrote: > > njames93 wrote: > > > This is a slight change in behaviour, The old implementation used the > > > operator< on a `std::shared_ptr`. > > > That in turns boils down to a comparison on the raw pointer, which is > > > less than ideal. > > Why is that less than ideal? Does the ordering need to be stable? > It's not strictly necessary that the ordering is stable. but when printing > the contents of the map it would be nice if there was some obvious ordering. > This also (partially) mimics the behaviour of the comparison for > `std::pair<SourceRange, SharedLocationCall>`. seems like a strange tradeoff to me for the LLVM codebase - we have lots of unstable maps & don't try to make them nicer for printing - especially if that would come at any performance cost, like doing string comparisons. Does the SourceRange+SharedLocationCall need stability? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D100378/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D100378 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
