dblaikie added a comment. In D115503#3191156 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D115503#3191156>, @Esme wrote:
> In D115503#3188302 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D115503#3188302>, @dblaikie > wrote: > >> Got any data on how much this (combined with the LLVM patch) increases debug >> info size of, say, a clang self-host build? I assume not much, but wouldn't >> hurt to know. > > > > | section | before | after | > | .debug_loc | 929821 | 929821 | > | .debug_abbrev | 5885289 | 5971547 | > | .debug_info | 497613455 | 498122074 | > | .debug_ranges | 45731664 | 45731664 | > | .debug_str | 233842595 | 233839388 | > | .debug_line | 149773166 | 149764583 | > | > > I built two self-host Clangs with and without the two patches and got the > results shown in the table, and I think the increase of size is acceptable? > >> (does GCC produce this sort of debug info, or does it skip the access >> specifiers on nested types?) > > Yes, GCC also emits the access attribute for nested types when the access > level doesn't equal to the default. Thanks for the data - looks good to me. Maybe include some of that data (summary of total binary size change/total debug info size change - and if you could include the flags (was this an -O0 -g build? Optimized (at what level)? Compressed debug info (-gz)? etc) that'd be helpful to better understand the comparison. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D115503/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D115503 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
