llvm dev - Apr 2018 - llvm::sort - A new wrapper to std::sort

r327219 added a new wrapper function called *llvm::sort*. If 
EXPENSIVE_CHECKS is enabled, llvm::sort will randomly shuffle the 
container before invoking std::sort. This will help uncover 
non-deterministic ordering of objects having the same key.

All occurrences of std::sort have been changed to llvm::sort in 
llvm/clang/polly repos.

Going forward please make sure to avoid use of std::sort and instead use 
llvm::sort. Maybe we should add a note on the usage of llvm::sort to the 
LLVM Coding Standards?

Thanks,
Mandeep

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180413/f521f2e5/attachment.html>

On 13 April 2018 at 21:24, Grang, Mandeep Singh via cfe-dev
<cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Going forward please make sure to avoid use of std::sort and instead use
> llvm::sort. Maybe we should add a note on the usage of llvm::sort to the
> LLVM Coding Standards?
Very definitely. I quite like the idea, but banning a standard library
function on this scale is a big step and needs to be justified.
Generally we try to move in the other direction.

Really, this announcement should have linked to the original discussion.

Cheers.

Tim.

Thanks Tim. I will add a note about llvm::sort to the coding guidelines.
> Really, this announcement should have linked to the original discussion.
The bulk of the discussion is on the comments of the patch
https://reviews.llvm.org/D39245.
And here is the email which details the failures uncovered by the patch
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-October/118639.html

--Mandeep



On 4/13/2018 2:37 PM, Tim Northover wrote:
> On 13 April 2018 at 21:24, Grang, Mandeep Singh via cfe-dev
> <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> Going forward please make sure to avoid use of std::sort and instead
use
>> llvm::sort. Maybe we should add a note on the usage of llvm::sort to
the
>> LLVM Coding Standards?
> Very definitely. I quite like the idea, but banning a standard library
> function on this scale is a big step and needs to be justified.
> Generally we try to move in the other direction.
>
> Really, this announcement should have linked to the original discussion.
>
> Cheers.
>
> Tim.