vsapsai added a comment. In D114095#3188557 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D114095#3188557>, @jansvoboda11 wrote:
> Given that, I think we should commit this patch with ID vectors, even though > in isolation (without D112915 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D112915>) it's the > worse solution. WDYT? I have to admit that I think ID vector code is easier to understand and the format is easier to understand. And if bitvector approach is more complicated but doesn't gain us much in efficiency, then I think it's not worth pursuing. Though I'm glad and grateful that you've tried bitvector approach, that's very helpful. My preference is to use ID vectors but I'm open to other opinions as I might be missing other trade-offs besides complexity and .pcm file size. And I want to thank you for checking the sparseness of submodules and how with the bigger modules the impact of the sparseness becomes more pronounced. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D114095/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D114095 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
