nocchijiang wrote: > I suspect that the no-LTO case might still encounter some slowdown, as each > CU needs to read the entire CGData regardless.
I can confirm that the performance have been improved significantly from my testing on no-LTO projects that the slowdown is acceptable now. Before applying the PR it was about 50% slowdown, now it is ~5%. > Alternatively, we could restructure the indexed CGData to allow for reading > only the relevant hash entries on demand. Besides only consuming the matched stable entries like what this PR does, this is exactly what I planned to do to reduce the memory footprint of the deserialized CGData. I would like to discuss the detail in the RFC thread with you to make sure that we are on the same page before coding it. 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
