aaron.ballman added a comment. In D150038#4326554 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D150038#4326554>, @cor3ntin wrote:
> In D150038#4326549 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D150038#4326549>, @aaron.ballman > wrote: > >> Do you have some performance measurement numbers for how much benefit we get >> from the changes? > > Not really. > The PR that changed the scope of trailing return type had a 0.35% regression, > I expect this to be in the same ballpark in the other direction > http://llvm-compile-time-tracker.com/compare.php?from=cd173cbd7cca69c29df42cd4b42e60433435c29b&to=d708a186b6a9b050d09558163dd353d9f738c82d&stat=instructions%3Au We usually want performance-related changes to come with some hard measurements because of how painfully easy it is to think something will result in a positive performance change that ends up being a wash. Would you mind putting a branch up on the compile time tracker page to validate your expectations? .35% better performance would be nice to see! Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D150038/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D150038 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
