This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: C++: Why do we nreverse CLASSTYPE_TAGS

From: Matt Austern <austern at apple dot com>
To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, jason at redhat dot com
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 11:56:38 -0800
Subject: Re: C++: Why do we nreverse CLASSTYPE_TAGS

On Monday, March 24, 2003, at 11:21 AM, Mark Mitchell wrote:

OK, I'll experiment with that approach.  What threasold would you put
for "lots"?


I dunno.  Probably 10 or so, to start.  With fewer than that, hashing
can't possibly be a win.

How expensive is the hash function? Unless it's pretty extreme, I'd be surprised if you needed to get all the way to 10 to get a win.

-Matt

Follow-Ups:
- Re: C++: Why do we nreverse CLASSTYPE_TAGS
  - From: Gabriel Dos Reis
- Re: C++: Why do we nreverse CLASSTYPE_TAGS
  - From: Mark Mitchell

References:
- Re: C++: Why do we nreverse CLASSTYPE_TAGS
  - From: Mark Mitchell

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]