kyulee-com wrote: @nocchijiang The new approach seems to be functioning well and is similar in size to the previous method. I suspect that the no-LTO case might still encounter some slowdown, as each CU needs to read the entire CGData regardless. Currently, the CGData used for this merging process does not utilize names, which means we could potentially eliminate strings or make them optional. Alternatively, we could restructure the indexed CGData to allow for reading only the relevant hash entries on demand. I'd like to leave these options open for now, and if you can continue to improve it, that would be excellent.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/115750 _______________________________________________ llvm-branch-commits mailing list llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
