Sorry for the delay, the patch is fine, thank you. Could you add a few more descriptive comments to the testcases with what you're checking for and why?
Thanks! -eric On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Adrian Prantl <[email protected]> wrote: > So everybody seems to be ok with the performance. Eric, do you have any > opinion on the caching part? > > thanks, > Adrian > > On Feb 27, 2013, at 2:36 PM, jahanian <[email protected]> wrote: > > > LGTM. > > - Thanks Fariborz > > > > On Feb 27, 2013, at 1:55 PM, Adrian Prantl <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > >> On Feb 27, 2013, at 10:04 AM, jahanian <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> LLVM IR times look within reasonable range. Also, please make sure > what you are > >>> timing has @implementation of classes in them and preferably, with > bunch of their > >>> own private ivars. > >>> > >> > >> > >> Building an entire application (that uses the feature) with “time”: > >> > >> Baseline > >> ======== > >> Debug+Asserts: > >> user 31m45.597s > >> > >> Release > >> user 3m52.094s > >> > >> with patch > >> ========== > >> Debug+Asserts: > >> user 31m35.599s > >> Release > >> user 3m52.637s > >> > >> > >> -- adrian > >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
