[MIR] Change SimplifyCfg pass to use BitVec #31447
Conversation
|
r? @brson (rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
nagisa
force-pushed
the
mir-cfgsimplify-bitvec
branch
2 times, most recently
from
55003d9
to
950e58a
Compare
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #31425) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
nagisa
force-pushed
the
mir-cfgsimplify-bitvec
branch
from
950e58a
to
ebb5b7a
Compare
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #31600) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
|
This was briefly discussed here #30238 (comment), merely some guesses on how big the dataset really is, and what's the appropriate fix. BitVec seems better than Vec either way. |
BitVector is much more space efficient.
nagisa
force-pushed
the
mir-cfgsimplify-bitvec
branch
from
ebb5b7a
to
b92e243
Compare
|
Rebased. This is a pretty simple one and independent from others so could land right now. |
| type Item = usize; | ||
| fn next(&mut self) -> Option<usize> { | ||
| while self.current == 0 { | ||
| self.current = if let Some(&i) = self.iter.next() { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It seems like it'd be easier/clearer to just keep a slice with some indices here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(But don't feel you have to change it.)
|
@bors r+ |
|
📌 Commit b92e243 has been approved by |
BitVector is more space efficient.
BitVector is more space efficient.