News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on The time complexity of the libc++ deque push_front implementation is O(log n). Parent comment

Re:The time complexity of the libc++ deque push_front implem... by rightbyte on Sunday November 28, 2021 @10:01AM (#29369373)
Reading those C or C++ standard libraries is like a joke. Almost nothing is done in a direct or clear way and internal methods have cryptic names hidden in macros.

Maybe for a good reason I dunno. But it would be nice if the code was clearer so you could make sense of it when gdb or callgrind jumps into an inlined chunk ...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The time complexity of the libc++ deque push_front implem... by brandmeyer on Sunday November 28, 2021 @01:02PM (#29371156)
> internal methods have cryptic names

They choose names like _Capitalized and __lowercase because those identifiers are reserved for the implementation. Its a consequence of the preprocessor's lack of hygiene.

So where you might see a convention of naming members like m_thingish_foo, in the implementation's library headers they would be named _M_thingish_foo or __m_thingish_foo.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The time complexity of the libc++ deque push_front implem... by rightbyte on Sunday November 28, 2021 @01:33PM (#29371494)
Ye true. Maybe I am just whining because the inlined chunks in e.g. callgrind or gdb looks so random. I should use "-Og" more often ...
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The time complexity of the libc++ deque push_front implem... by brandmeyer on Sunday November 28, 2021 @07:05PM (#29374690)
GDB has a pluggable pretty-printing system.

http://sourceware.org/gdb/wiki/STLSupport

That doesn't necessarily help if you are backtracing from your own lambda up through some <algorithm>. But it does help many other use cases with the standard library.

[ Parent | on HN ]