search for: d48518

...that's my intuition. If you wanted to limit all our vectors to 4 billion elements to save a pointer, I'd probably be fine with that. Good point, there are two separable changes here and only the union part is likely to have compile-time slowdowns. I threw together https://reviews.llvm.org/D48518 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D48518> (currently building with ASan to run check-llvm) and the surely uncontroversial https://reviews.llvm.org/D48516 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D48516>. > I think we might be better off just reducing the pre-allocation size of most of our SmallVectors acr...

>> On Jun 21, 2018, at 18:38, Chris Lattner <clattner at nondot.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Jun 21, 2018, at 9:52 AM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> I've been curious for a while whether SmallVectors have the right speed/memory tradeoff. It would be straightforward to shave off a couple of