================
@@ -493,36 +493,27 @@ class RangeDataVector {
#ifdef ASSERT_RANGEMAP_ARE_SORTED
assert(IsSorted());
#endif
- typename Collection::iterator pos;
- typename Collection::iterator end;
- typename Collection::iterator prev;
- bool can_combine = false;
- // First we determine if we can combine any of the Entry objects so we
- // don't end up allocating and making a new collection for no reason
- for (pos = m_entries.begin(), end = m_entries.end(), prev = end; pos !=
end;
- prev = pos++) {
- if (prev != end && prev->data == pos->data) {
- can_combine = true;
- break;
- }
- }
+ auto first_intersect = std::adjacent_find(
+ m_entries.begin(), m_entries.end(), [](const Entry &a, const Entry &b)
{
+ return a.DoesAdjoinOrIntersect(b) && a.data == b.data;
+ });
+ if (first_intersect == m_entries.end())
+ return;
- // We can combine at least one entry, then we make a new collection and
- // populate it accordingly, and then swap it into place.
- if (can_combine) {
- Collection minimal_ranges;
- for (pos = m_entries.begin(), end = m_entries.end(), prev = end;
- pos != end; prev = pos++) {
- if (prev != end && prev->data == pos->data)
- minimal_ranges.back().SetRangeEnd(pos->GetRangeEnd());
- else
- minimal_ranges.push_back(*pos);
- }
- // Use the swap technique in case our new vector is much smaller. We must
- // swap when using the STL because std::vector objects never release or
- // reduce the memory once it has been allocated/reserved.
- m_entries.swap(minimal_ranges);
+ // We can combine at least one entry. Make a new collection and populate it
+ // accordingly, and then swap it into place.
+ auto pos = std::next(first_intersect);
+ Collection minimal_ranges(m_entries.begin(), pos);
+ for (; pos != m_entries.end(); ++pos) {
+ Entry &back = minimal_ranges.back();
+ if (back.DoesAdjoinOrIntersect(*pos) && back.data == pos->data)
+ back.SetRangeEnd(std::max(back.GetRangeEnd(), pos->GetRangeEnd()));
+ else
+ minimal_ranges.push_back(*pos);
}
+ m_entries.swap(minimal_ranges);
+ if (!m_entries.empty())
----------------
labath wrote:
Good catch. I am usually all about deleting these.
I was actually thinking about follow this up with a patch to move the check
inside the function, as it's currently repeated at all call sites (including
the recursive ones).
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/127059
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
