-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 28
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
C++ Constructor Clean-up and Move semantics #51
Open
SSoelvsten
wants to merge
11
commits into
trolando:master
Choose a base branch
from
SSoelvsten:cxx-constructors
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
SSoelvsten
force-pushed
the
cxx-constructors
branch
from
April 12, 2024 22:16
ae66358
to
15e5946
Compare
Assuming 'sylvan_protect' has no effect on 'sylvan_false' or some 'invalid' value, then we can further improve performance by removing the 'sylvan_protect'
Nothing is really gained by doing so since Sylvan's protect and unprotect are on the variables, not by use of reference counting.
Similar to the Bdd class, we have to remember to protect the new 'sylvan_false' to not mess up anything when 'sylvan_unprotect' is called during the destructor.
This way, the code for dealing with protection is only taken care of in a single place. Furthermore, there are no code-duplications for the meaning of each operator. Finally, the assignment should use the new move-assignment
Again, nothing is really gained from doing so except more code.
…ators This way, the code for dealing with protection is only taken care of in a single place. Furthermore, there are no code-duplications for the meaning of each operator. Finally, the assignment should use the new move-assignment
SSoelvsten
force-pushed
the
cxx-constructors
branch
from
April 12, 2024 22:18
15e5946
to
1d5066a
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
At ETAPS, you (Tom van Dijk) mentioned something about fixing the C++ constructors. I tried to take a look.
sylvan_false
costs less? But, otherwise there is no difference.On the bright side, having done this I am confident I have refreshed my memory of using Sylvan enough to do the C++ ZDD interface, I promised.
Here are all of the changes. I personally would advocate for rebasing this branch to remove any of the commits with move-semantics; these changes are just code-duplication. The rest are possibly nice for maintainability.
I have tested this with test/test_cxx and by checking my benchmarks still compile and seem to work.