dexonsmith added a comment. In D109632#3079745 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D109632#3079745>, @vsapsai wrote:
> In D109632#3079455 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D109632#3079455>, @rmaz wrote: > >> So given these numbers are we good to go ahead with set dedupe approach? > > I'd rather get an opinion on this from other reviewers. It's not purely a > numbers game, there can be other reasons to prefer one solution over another. > I am biased, so I don't think I can make this call. If reviewers want a short > summary instead of checking the entire discussion, we can prepare that. Can you summarize how each of the two proposed new architectures differ from the baseline? Note also that clang/lib/Serialization/MultiOnDiskHashTable.h is an option if there's a tradeoff between redundantly repeating information in module files (optimize for storage) and the number of module files that need to be visited (optimize for having information available). I think I mentioned it way up thread (indirectly, when talking about identifier tables), but I'm not sure if it was considered. > If anybody is interested in the raw measurement data, I can provide it. The > data is suitable for calculating the statistical significance between > different methods using t-test. 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
