rmaz added a comment. In D109632#3022209 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D109632#3022209>, @vsapsai wrote:
> That patch looks correct, I was experimenting with exactly the same local > change. Have you tried D110123 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D110123> on your > original build? In my testing with synthetic test case it looks as good as > set deduplication. I am getting some pretty unexpected results from this approach. For the files I could get to complete below are the compilation times for each approach for the 10 slowest (in the baseline) files: | **file** | **baseline** | **set deduplication** | **no external methods in pcm** | | Total | 95.57 | 75.30 | 306.46 | | IGSFCVC.m | 4.57 | 1.53 | 13.71 | | IGVFVC.mm | 4.19 | 1.61 | 27.93 | | IGMFAHC.mm | 4.00 | 1.93 | 9.94 | | IGMFLCVC.m | 3.89 | 1.55 | 12.30 | | PLRFPPC.mm | 3.19 | 3.26 | 3.99 | | IGBFPVC.m | 3.18 | 1.11 | 28.92 | | IGBVC.m | 2.37 | 0.98 | 17.42 | | PLRRM.mm | 1.99 | 1.99 | 2.31 | | IGBSPSC.m | 1.88 | 0.85 | 14.38 | | All of the most interesting files were left out of these results as I could not get compilation to complete for the no external methods approach. > I still think it is worth to pursue writing only owned methods in > `METHOD_POOL`. Deduplication with a DenseSet works but I still expect it to > be more expensive than avoiding duplicates by construction. As for the next > step I was thinking about changing `ASTMethodPoolTrait` to skip transitive > methods during serialization and it should help with eliminating all the > duplicates. With that change we can test and see how it works. I will take a go at this approach to eliminate all external methods and compare to see if this exhibits similar behaviour. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D109632/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D109632 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
