MaskRay added a comment. In D87953#2293162 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D87953#2293162>, @ianlevesque wrote:
> Thanks @MaskRay - I tried to answer that question in > https://reviews.llvm.org/D87953#2286430. At present we are deploying > instrumentation to an arbitrary subset of our application using the > instruction threshold. I would like to make the selection of how many and > which functions more deterministic, and be able to instrument different > subsets over time. The overhead we are concerned with is purely binary size > as we are deploying to Android devices. We are using features from my > previous XRay patches to omit the function index already, but the sheer > number of sleds and size of the associated xray_instr_map are the limiting > factor of how much we can instrument in any given app release. For our use > case it is fine to gradually over a period of weeks work our way across the > entire app group by group. Thanks for clarification. It is the size overhead, instead of the runtime overhead:) This makes sense. You probably want to enhance the test to check `internal` linkage (e.g. static functions). You can change `bar` or `yarr` instead of introducing new functions. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D87953/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D87953 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
