Subzero: Simplify the constant pools.

src/IceOperand.cpp

Index: src/IceOperand.cpp
diff --git a/src/IceOperand.cpp b/src/IceOperand.cpp
index 583a6bcbbf5d0852a3336e1a3512fee5b806b358..3aaecaca514d77503a45b37d12a3e024aa802265 100644
--- a/src/IceOperand.cpp
+++ b/src/IceOperand.cpp
@@ -20,12 +20,8 @@
 
 namespace Ice {
 
-bool operator<(const RelocatableTuple &A, const RelocatableTuple &B) {
-  if (A.Offset != B.Offset)
-    return A.Offset < B.Offset;
-  if (A.SuppressMangling != B.SuppressMangling)
-    return A.SuppressMangling < B.SuppressMangling;
-  return A.Name < B.Name;
+bool operator==(const RelocatableTuple &A, const RelocatableTuple &B) {
+  return A.Offset == B.Offset && A.Name == B.Name;

[jvoung (off chromium), 2014/11/19 20:54:55]

This used to check SuppressMangling as well. It does seem like there shouldn't
be a conflict w/ not checking that, so should be okay, but just wanted to check.
Same with the hash function.

[Jim Stichnoth, 2014/11/20 00:08:57]

You're right, I'll update the commit message.

We will never have two (relocatable) symbols with the same name where one
version needs mangling and the other version does not.  The ones that need
mangling are globals with definitions/initializations in this pexe.  The ones
that don't need mangling are helper functions, and external globals without
definitions/initializations.  So there's no benefit to including the
SuppressMangling field in the tuple comparison and hash functions.  The fact
that we used it before was either always unnecessary, or covering over some
other misunderstanding or incorrect implementation.

 }
 
 bool operator<(const RegWeight &A, const RegWeight &B) {