ChuanqiXu9 wrote: > Let's zoom out a little. The approach in D41416 shows that it is feasible to > store _a_ hash of the template arguments to delay eager deserializations. The > ODR hash approach is a second order problem because we can swap it with > something better once we need to. In order to make progress we have > introduced [D153003](https://reviews.llvm.org/D153003) which allows our > infrastructure to work. The way I see moving forward here is: > > * Base this PR on D41416 in the approach how we model the lazy > deserialization of templates. That'd mean that we "just" need to replace > `LazySpecializationInfo *LazySpecializations = nullptr;` with the on-disk > hash table approach. That would probably require centralizing that logic > somewhere in the ASTReader (the way this PR does) but with minimal changes > wrt D41416. > * Test the implementation on our infrastructure for correctness > * Test the implementation on the Google infrastructure for scalability > * Think on a better approach to replace odr hashing if we see more > pathological problems.
Yeah, no problem at all. This is what I want in the higher level too. What I am confused is about the status of [D153003](https://reviews.llvm.org/D153003). If it is true that we've describe the problem completely in the review page, then https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/c31d6b4ef135098280b0ebb93e95b258a0d372ca should be a proper fix for that. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/76774 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
