• robinm
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Couldn’t this be solved by having push_back being an inline function (or at least the check on capacity being inlined and the rest of the non-trivial part being in a sub non-inline function)?

    • kornel
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I don’t know about C++, but in Rust the push is inline, and still doesn’t always optimize checks away due to an annoying edge case: integer overflow. Reserving (old_len + new_len) could give you a smaller buffer than new_len. The optimizer sees it and is pedantic about it.

      • robinm
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        In C++ integer overflow is UB so this edge case cannot exist

        • kornel
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Only signed overflow. size_t is unsigned.

          • robinm
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            That’s totally right but I thought you were talking about signed numbers since you said “integer overflow”. I forgot that len is usually unsigned in C++.

      • robinm
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        emplace controls the construction of the object added to the collection. It’s also important but not related to the problem exposed by OP which is “how to remove the capacity check when we know statically that there is enough space”.