fdeazeve added a comment. In D150366#4336168 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D150366#4336168>, @bulbazord wrote:
> Ok, this looks like it's doing the same thing to me which is good. My > understanding of this change is that you're changing > `lldb::DWARFDebugRanges::Extract` to use `llvm::DWARFDebugRangeList` instead > of `lldb::DWARFRangeList`. > > Out of curiosity, do you have an idea of the change to performance (if any)? > I wouldn't expect it to be very different if at all because I don't think the > algorithms between lldb and llvm are different but it would be nice to make > sure. I ran an experiment with a C++ project that forced LLDB to parse roughly 30,000 range entries and no significant differences were detected: // LLDB's implementation Time (mean ± σ): 695.2 ms ± 7.9 ms [User: 157.8 ms, System: 69.0 ms] Range (min … max): 678.7 ms … 703.1 ms 10 runs // LLVM's implementation Time (mean ± σ): 694.9 ms ± 9.7 ms [User: 158.8 ms, System: 70.5 ms] Range (min … max): 675.2 ms … 711.7 ms 10 runs Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D150366/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D150366 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
