On Nov 20, 2012, at 8:20 PM, Rafael Espíndola <[email protected]>
wrote:
> When first looking at the testcase in pr13844 my first idea was
> caching the visibility computation. I did some simpler fixes first,
> but decided to try caching too.
I've wanted to get visibility cached for a while. This looks like a good step.
FWIW, there's a typo "Explict" here:
+ /// \brief true if the visibility is explicit.
+ mutable unsigned CachedVisibilityExplict : 1;
> The attached patch implements it, but after the previous fixes we are
> now spending most of the time of that testcase just linking the decls,
> so the performance impact is in the noise. It might still be a good
> idea to do it since it provides an assert on what conditions can
> change the computed visibility.
Interesting. Well, killing one source of the performance problem here might
help us kill the next one…
- Doug
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
