friss added a comment.
Thanks for the initial feedback!
> Mostly just skimmed so far, will hopefully have some time to look at this
> more tomorrow. Out of interest, do you have any performance numbers using
> this change? I assume this mainly impacts implicit modules (since I suspect
> we'd also be opening the file as well anyway), is that true?
You're correct that this overhead has been measured on implicit module builds.
As I mentioned in the commit message this saves over 20% of the overall built
time in some cases. This time is split between module validation (which could
be skipped) and HeaderSearch (which cannot be skipped).
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Frontend/CompilerInvocation.cpp:5115-5130
+ for (const auto &File : CI.getHeaderSearchOpts().VFSStatCacheFiles) {
+ llvm::ErrorOr<std::unique_ptr<llvm::MemoryBuffer>> Buffer =
+ llvm::MemoryBuffer::getFile(File);
+ if (!Buffer) {
+ Diags.Report(diag::err_missing_vfs_stat_cache_file) << File;
+ continue;
+ }
----------------
bnbarham wrote:
> IMO VFS overlays being modeled like this is a mistake and makes
> reasoning/testing about them fairly difficult. I have a PR up
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D121423 to change `OverlayFileSystem` to make more
> sense and be a real overlay rather than what it is now. If I finish that one
> off, how would you feel about changing the behavior of `StatCacheFileSystem`
> to just immediately error if it doesn't contain the file, rather than proxy
> (and thus chain) as it does now?
>
> So for multiple files we'd then have:
> - OverlayFileSystem
> - StatCacheFileSystem
> - StatCacheFileSystem
> - RealFileSystem
>
> Then any non-stat or exists call would return
> `llvm::errc::no_such_file_or_directory` and then the next FS would be used
> instead.
>
> I don't think this *really* matters for `StatCacheFileSystem`, so I'm fine if
> you'd rather not wait for me to change `OverlayFileSystem`. I can make the
> changes myself after getting my PR in.
I don't think that's really doable if you want to keep the ability to cache
negative hits. If a miss always results in a query to the real filesystem, then
you're not saving the `stat` call. A lot of the time is spent in HeaderSearch
which queries a similar number of non-existing and existing files.
But I'm not dead set on this. I also haven't spent a lot of time thinking about
your proposal.
================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Support/VirtualFileSystem.cpp:2959-2960
+ // the pathis different. The canonicalization that the call to
remove_dots()
+ // does leaves only '..' with symlinks as a source of confusion. If the
path
+ // does not contain '..' we can safely say it doesn't exist.
+ if (std::find(sys::path::begin(SuffixPath), sys::path::end(SuffixPath),
----------------
bnbarham wrote:
> This sentence is a little confusing to me. `remove_dots` just leaves `..`
> unless you pass `remove_dot_dot` (but it doesn't do any checking). IMO just
> the `If the path does not contain '..' we can safely say it doesn't exist.`
> is enough.
`remove_dots` does more than remove dots. It is confusing, but it also removes
excess separators (see the `Canonical` unit test). This means that the cache
will work for /path/to/cache/file/a as well as /path/to/cache/file///a and
/path/to/cache/file/././a. There are basically infinite spellings of a path
just by adding `.` and additional separators.
`..` is interesting because it's not semantically preserving to remove them in
the presence of symlinks.
I'm fine with simplifying the description, but that is the nuance I tried to
convey.
================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Support/VirtualFileSystem.cpp:2961
+ // does not contain '..' we can safely say it doesn't exist.
+ if (std::find(sys::path::begin(SuffixPath), sys::path::end(SuffixPath),
+ "..") == sys::path::end(SuffixPath)) {
----------------
bnbarham wrote:
> FWIW `StringRef` has a `contains`
But that wouldn't be correct. Here we are looking for a path component which is
`..`. A simple text search would fire on a filename containing `..`. I think
this search on components is the only correct way to do this.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D136651/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D136651
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
