>>> I don't really know just how much LLDB cares about fixed-size forms/DIEs, >>> but rumor has it it's important to some degree, so I continue to have a >>> slight preference towards fixed size representations (or at least having >>> the option to do so, even if there are variable length forms too - as >>> with addrx). >> >> Greg Clayton has told me it's a performance win for loading .debug_info. >> They can index fixed-size DIEs without actually parsing them. When I >> proposed the fixed-size strx/addrx forms to the committee, I did some >> data collection on the effect of strx and addrx. Converting to strx >> meant fixed size DIEs went from 90-ish to 55-ish percent of all DIEs, >> so fixed-size strxN forms were definitely worthwhile. The equivalent >> analysis for addrx showed a difference of more like 4%, which was >> enough to persuade the committee that would be worthwhile also. > > I imagine the same would be true of ranges in an optimized build? (Maybe > a little lower, but not by much) 'spose, as you say, we can always add > rnglistxN in the future. It could be helpful there, I did not try to do any measurements. --paulr
_______________________________________________ Dwarf-Discuss mailing list Dwarf-Discuss@lists.dwarfstd.org http://lists.dwarfstd.org/listinfo.cgi/dwarf-discuss-dwarfstd.org
