> So between hashtab and VEC, which one do you prefer? Either one is fine with > me.
I would go with VEC. While the array will have holes, there are not many since the ids are originally assigned sequentially. Actually given that we do IPA pass now, I think you can just remove cgraph->pid field and replace it by cgraph->uid. The original issue was that profiling made cgraph->uid diverge in between compilation and profling time becuase it affected things like early inlining. This is not true anymore, so cgraph->uid should work well now. Honza > > Thanks, > > David > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Jan Hubicka <hubi...@ucw.cz> wrote: > >> > >> Why is VEC any better in terms of density ? Are you suggesting using a > >> hash table? > > It is not any better, but we usually use VEC for variably sized arrays like > > this one. Not that I would be big fan of its API, but at least it fives > > bounds checking that would catch bugs like one you are fixing more reliably. > > > > Honza > >> > >> > >> , making init_pid_map to allocate it cleared and add also > >> > test that VEC_index (pid_map, pid) is not NULL in addition to the bound > >> > check > >> > above. > >> > > >> > Also we ought to free pids once the IPA profiling pass is done. I.e. at > >> > the end of tree_profling > >> > function. > >> > >> Yes. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> David > >> > >> > > >> > Honza > >> > > >
