AaronBallman wrote:
> Hi @nikic, thanks for spotting the issue and reverted the commit.
>
> Hi @AaronBallman,
>
> As @nikic mentioned that the issue is that the used strings may be expensive
> to compute. If we remove the change to record the function name and function
> location, I think the issue will be fixed.
>
> This means:
>
> 1. Remove the time trace scope variable of `ParseFunctionDefinition`.
>
>
> ```
> llvm::TimeTraceScope TimeScope(
> "ParseFunctionDefinition",
> Actions.GetNameForDeclarator(D).getName().getAsString());
> ```
>
> 2. Remove the source location for the time trace scope variable of
> "ParseDeclarationOrFunctionDefinition".
> Change:
>
>
> ```
> llvm::TimeTraceScope TimeScope(
> "ParseDeclarationOrFunctionDefinition",
> Tok.getLocation().printToString(
> Actions.getASTContext().getSourceManager()));
> ```
>
> To:
>
> ```
> llvm::TimeTraceScope TimeScope(
> "ParseDeclarationOrFunctionDefinition");
> ```
>
> Could you please let me know your thoughts? or any suggestion?
>
> Thanks, Maggie
I think the suggestion from @nikic is to use the `TimeTraceScope` constructor
accepting a function reference instead of the one accepting a string. e.g.,
change to using something like:
```
llvm::TimeTraceScope TimeScope(
"ParseDeclarationOrFunctionDefinition", [&] {
return Tok.getLocation().printToString(
Actions.getASTContext().getSourceManager())
});
```
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/65268
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
