dblaikie added a comment. In D123345#3453037 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D123345#3453037>, @rnk wrote:
> Generally speaking, this sounds like a good idea to me. One time in 2019 I > used -ftime-trace+ClangBuildAnalyzer and it told me that std::unique_ptr was > the most expensive template > <https://twitter.com/reidkleckner/status/1198108401177251840> because it is > instantiated so much. Those results don't even capture the -O0 object file > size impact. > > In D123345#3452933 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D123345#3452933>, @rsmith wrote: > >> In D123345#3452496 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D123345#3452496>, >> @aaron.ballman wrote: >> >>> Do you have ideas on how we can improve the debugging checkpoint behavior >>> (if at all)? >> >> I think we just live with it, like we do for other builtin functions. (There >> might be things we can do by emitting inlining info into the debug info. If >> we do that, we should presumably do it for all builtin lib functions.) > > Honestly, I don't think it's worth the debug info bytes to describe these > inlined call sites. Debug info isn't free. +1 there - and also these operations/intrinsics produce no instructions, so far as I understand/know - so for now, LLVM's got to way to represent that anyway (there's some talk in DWARF about how to have multiple "states" for a single instruction location (so, eg, you could step in/out of an inlined function even though you stay at exactly the same instruction)) Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D123345/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D123345 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
