lichray marked 3 inline comments as done.
lichray added inline comments.
================
Comment at: include/charconv:234
+to_chars(char* __first, char* __last, _Tp __value, int __base)
+ -> to_chars_result
+{
----------------
mclow.lists wrote:
> Why use the trailing return type here?
> I don't see any advantage - it doesn't depend on the parameters (template or
> runtime).
>
>
Because clang-format doesn't distinguish storage specifiers and
simple-type-specifiers, and I want to format return types along with function
signatures rather than letting hanging somewhere.
================
Comment at: src/support/itoa/itoa.cpp:35
+
+#define APPEND1(i) \
+ do \
----------------
mclow.lists wrote:
> lichray wrote:
> > EricWF wrote:
> > > Any reason these can't be `static` functions? The compiler should
> > > optimize them away nicely.
> > Although yes, but that's what the author provides. It's an implementation
> > file, so it doesn't matter I guess.
> It *does* matter, since we'll have to maintain this.
>
> It would also be nice if they had meaningful names.
I tried (template + forceinline), and the binary was optimized differently
(emitted ~100 more instructions). The author have tuned these really well. A
syntax like `buffer = append1(buffer, v)` may work better, I guess, but that
adds lots of noises.
These macros are not complex. They just emit a integer of width 1234 to digits.
Repository:
rCXX libc++
https://reviews.llvm.org/D41458
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
