AsmPrinter: Document why DIEValueList uses a linked-list, NFC

There are two main reasons why a linked-list makes sense for
`DIEValueList`.

 1. We want `DIE` to be on a `BumpPtrAllocator` to improve teardown
    efficiency.  Making `DIEValueList` array-based would make that much
    more complicated.
 2. The singly-linked list is fairly memory efficient.  The histogram
    [1] shows that most DIEs have relatively few values, so we often pay
    less than the 2/3-pointer static overhead of a vector.  Furthermore,
    we don't know ahead of time exactly how many values a `DIE` needs,
    so a vector-like scheme will on average over-allocate by ~50%.  As
    it happens, that's the same memory overhead as the linked list node.

[1]: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2015-May/085910.html

The comment I added to the code is a little more succinct, but I think
it's enough to give the idea.

git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@240868 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8

include/llvm/CodeGen/DIE.h

@@ -546,6 +546,16 @@ public:
 /// This is a singly-linked list, but instead of reversing the order of
 /// insertion, we keep a pointer to the back of the list so we can push in
 /// order.
+///
+/// There are two main reasons to choose a linked list over a customized
+/// vector-like data structure.
+///
+///  1. For teardown efficiency, we want DIEs to be BumpPtrAllocated.  Using a
+///     linked list here makes this way easier to accomplish.
+///  2. Carrying an extra pointer per \a DIEValue isn't expensive.  45% of DIEs
+///     have 2 or fewer values, and 90% have 5 or fewer.  A vector would be
+///     over-allocated by 50% on average anyway, the same cost as the
+///     linked-list node.
 class DIEValueList {
   struct Node : IntrusiveBackListNode {
     DIEValue V;