This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH][RFC] Fix PR63155 (some more)
- From: Richard Biener <rguenther at suse dot de>
- To: Steven Bosscher <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 09:00:16 +0200 (CEST)
- Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] Fix PR63155 (some more)
- References: <alpine.LSU.2.20.1809191455250.16707@zhemvz.fhfr.qr> <CABu31nMVNFyPCSXRj3=oHGbr53xFM_-dk9NcmZbGZX8akbw0Dw@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, 19 Sep 2018, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 3:06 PM Richard Biener wrote:
> > If we'd only had a O(log n) search sparse bitmap implementation ...
> > (Steven posted patches to switch bitmap from/to such one but IIRC
> > that at least lacked bitmap_first_set_bit).
>
> But bitmap_first_set_bit would be easy to implement. Just take the
> left-most node of the splay tree.
>
> Actually all bit-tests would be easy to implement. It's only
> enumeration and set operations on the tree-views that would be
> complicated fluff (easier to "switch views" than re-implement).
>
> Impressive that you remember >5yr old patches like that ;-)
;)
Well, it's still useful (but obviously doesn't apply). Not sure
iff the worst-case behavior of splay-trees makes it a pointless
exercise though ;)
Richard.