diff options
| author | Chris Lattner <sabre@nondot.org> | 2004-07-23 08:24:23 +0000 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Chris Lattner <sabre@nondot.org> | 2004-07-23 08:24:23 +0000 |
| commit | 53280cd26e9c9b87aed4f6e9e1acc485cba592a3 (patch) | |
| tree | 649668c6e5a88ccc37c2d23ef77687560f8f52c0 /llvm/lib/CodeGen/MachineCodeForInstruction.cpp | |
| parent | aaf1e74a85c43080cb9f6f143d803ffeae58e4e2 (diff) | |
| download | bcm5719-llvm-53280cd26e9c9b87aed4f6e9e1acc485cba592a3.tar.gz bcm5719-llvm-53280cd26e9c9b87aed4f6e9e1acc485cba592a3.zip | |
Improve comments a bit
Use an explicit LiveRange class to represent ranges instead of an std::pair.
This is a minor cleanup, but is really intended to make a future patch simpler
and less invasive.
Alkis, could you please take a look at LiveInterval::liveAt? I suspect that
you can add an operator<(unsigned) to LiveRange, allowing us to speed up the
upper_bound call by quite a bit (this would also apply to other callers of
upper/lower_bound). I would do it myself, but I still don't understand that
crazy liveAt function, despite the comment. :)
Basically I would like to see this:
LiveRange dummy(index, index+1);
Ranges::const_iterator r = std::upper_bound(ranges.begin(),
ranges.end(),
dummy);
Turn into:
Ranges::const_iterator r = std::upper_bound(ranges.begin(),
ranges.end(),
index);
llvm-svn: 15130
Diffstat (limited to 'llvm/lib/CodeGen/MachineCodeForInstruction.cpp')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions

