bcraig added a comment. tldr; I'm going to recommend we stick with the current algorithm, but I only have partial data to back that up.
For the pile of LLVM projects that I am currently building (llvm, clang, libcxx, libcxxabi), 18.9% of all analyzed functions hit the maximum step count. For the previously discussed large .C file, 37% of the analyzed functions hit the maximum step count. These are using the stats "AnalysisConsumer - The # of functions and blocks analyzed (as top level with inlining turned on)." and "CoreEngine - The # of times we reached the max number of steps.". The average number of steps is 34,447. My best guess at a median given the translation unit level statistics is around 8,050 steps. If we were to use the average number of steps to size the exploded graph, we would get a 256k buffer. We would also cause the (already slowest) ~20% of our functions to rehash (twice!). There is some data that I wish I had, but don't. I wish I had per-function step counts, so that I could present a histogram of the data. Then we would know what % of functions would be rehashed for a given value. http://reviews.llvm.org/D20933 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
