[llvm-commits] CVS: llvm/include/llvm/ValueSymbolTable.h TypeSymbolTable.h SymbolTable.h

2006-05-31 Thread Andrew Lenharth
Changes in directory llvm/include/llvm: ValueSymbolTable.h updated: 1.1 - 1.2 TypeSymbolTable.h updated: 1.2 - 1.3 SymbolTable.h updated: 1.51 - 1.52 --- Log message: Fix build breakage on alpha, without causing it on x86. as a bonus, all platforms can invent the same number of unique names

Re: [llvm-commits] CVS: llvm/include/llvm/ValueSymbolTable.h TypeSymbolTable.h SymbolTable.h

2006-05-31 Thread Reid Spencer
Wouldn't uint32_t be sufficient for these? I can't see anyone having more than 4 billion name collisions. And it reduce a little arithmetic cost on 32-bit platforms. Reid. On Wed, 2006-05-31 at 15:18 -0500, Andrew Lenharth wrote: Log message: Fix build breakage on alpha, without causing it

Re: [llvm-commits] CVS: llvm/include/llvm/ValueSymbolTable.h TypeSymbolTable.h SymbolTable.h

2006-05-31 Thread Chris Lattner
On Wed, 31 May 2006, Reid Spencer wrote: Wouldn't uint32_t be sufficient for these? I can't see anyone having more than 4 billion name collisions. And it reduce a little arithmetic cost on 32-bit platforms. Fine with me either way. Collision handling code isn't going to amazingly suffer from

Re: [llvm-commits] CVS: llvm/include/llvm/ValueSymbolTable.h TypeSymbolTable.h SymbolTable.h

2006-05-31 Thread Andrew Lenharth
On Wed, 2006-05-31 at 16:17, Chris Lattner wrote: On Wed, 31 May 2006, Reid Spencer wrote: Wouldn't uint32_t be sufficient for these? I can't see anyone having more than 4 billion name collisions. And it reduce a little arithmetic cost on 32-bit platforms. Fine with me either way.