Michael137 wrote: > > > > Sorry, it's been a while since I last reviewed this and I must admit I > > > > forgot about this in the mean time. The only thing I'd like to check > > > > before we can land this is to hear from @Michael137 who has been > > > > actively working on FindTypes performance recently whether this aligns > > > > or clashes with what he's been working on so we don't get a mid-air > > > > collision between patches. > > > > > > > > > Sounds good, I look forward to hearing if this fixes the issues as well. > > > Before this fix I ran a case where I did an expression like > > > "MyClass::iterator" and before this fix, with linux and no accelerator > > > tables, we would convert DWARF into clang AST types for over 2 million > > > types, and after this fix it went down to 11. This was when debugging > > > LLDB + LLVM + clang with debug info, so there were TONS of "iterator" > > > entries in the manual DWARF index. > > > On Apple the type accelerator tables have the hash of the fully qualified > > > name which can help reduce the number of types we parse, but we don't > > > have this on linux even with DWARF5 + .debug_names > > > > > > To add more context to @adrian-prantl's comment, we've been working on > > reviving https://reviews.llvm.org/D101950, which changes the way we > > complete record types. The main blocker was performance, because as you > > mention, we often end up doing these expensive namespace searches, which > > gets much more noticeable with D101950. The problem we saw was mostly > > triggered by the second lookup that `-gsimple-template-names` does in > > `FindTypes`. > > I applied your patch on top of D101950 and performance seems to be much > > better (by 2 orders of magnitude). It did break some tests locally for me, > > so I'm just skimming this patch to see what changed > > All tests passed on my machine from with this, so you might try those tests > without D101950 and see how things go? Happy to help if you need info on how > to do things with the new lookups.
All tests are passing for me now, it had to do with some badly resolved merge conflicts > Do we need to fix this in the commit message when I squash? Or do I just > update the title of this PR? I think when you press the `Squash and merge` button it will give you the chance to correct the title of the commit https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/74786 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
