ChuanqiXu9 wrote: > @ChuanqiXu9 are you still planning to chase this given that fixing the > hashing function would fix performance for the aforementioned patch? > > The trade-off we are making here is hard to assess without benchmarks that > show how much latency we win and how much more memory we spend. I am not sure > if doing the benchmarks would be high on anyone's priority list, but maybe > I'm wrong?
Yeah, I think this patch may be conceptually good except the extra memory using. But benchmarking, I tried it locally but didn't find observable effects. So I'd like to land this after 19's branching to give it more baking time. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/95506 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
