dblaikie added a comment. In D62635#1548721 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D62635#1548721>, @rnk wrote:
> In D62635#1548648 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D62635#1548648>, @dblaikie wrote: > > > In D62635#1548157 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D62635#1548157>, @rnk wrote: > > > > > We did things this way to track which **enumerators** were used, not > > > which enums were used. Size data showed it was worth doing (6%). The > > > existing format doesn't support tracking usage of individual enumerators, > > > so we pretended they were const integers to avoid changing the schema. > > > > > > Ah - describing all the enumerators in any emitted enum would be too many > > bits/too much size in output? > > > Yes, that's what @akhuang tried and measured against to come up with the 6% > number. Ah, OK - unused enumerators in used enumerations, rather than all unused enumerators in all enumerations unused or used... I'm with you now. Thanks! Repository: rL LLVM CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D62635/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D62635 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
