Re: [PATCH] fix PR51910, take 2

[Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>]

On Tue, Feb 07, 2012 at 11:41:03PM -1000, Jason Merrill wrote:
> Hmm, I wrote up something quite similar on the plane.  One
> difference is that mine synchronizes .rpo files that start with some
> variants chosen and others not.  Does this make sense to you?

You mean the maybe_tweak change?  Not sure I understand it.

Anyway, using VEC is probably cleaner than my patch, on the other
side might be more expensive for the common case where most
symbols don't demangle the same like any other symbol,
because then you allocate a VEC (I think 4 pointers) for each of the
hash table entries, i.e. one extra allocation for each.
> 
> >I wonder if it wouldn't be better to just use a linker plugin for -frepo
> >if the linker supports plugins.
> 
> Probably.  But I don't feel motivated to write it.

Me neither ;).
Anyway, the question is if the increases in object sizes with -frepo
(due to bringing in unused ctor or dtor variants from time to time)
will be acceptable to -frepo users (if there are any).

	Jakub