search for: known_size

... levels; > I'd malloc an ordinary vector of the appropriate length, > since we know the length at allocation time. and Duncan Sands replied: > if the number of levels is usually small it is usually better to use a > SmallVector (like in the code above) and do: >  levels.reserve(known_size); > That way you avoid a malloc if known_size <= 4. Surely faster, but what about the space impact, especially if the size is 0 or 1? Do we care? I have several ideas to save space, but there's almost always a time cost. I worry, being afraid we'll need to represent many, many depen...

Hi Sanjoy, I wondered: >> In LoopDependenceAnalysis::AnalyzePair, what's going to happen if we >> have something like this >> >> for (i = 0; i < n; i++) >>   for (j = 0; j < n; j++) >>     A[i][j]++; >> >> versus >> >> for (i = 0; i < n; i++) >>   for (j = 0; j < n; j++) >>     A[j][i]++; > I think this