tberghammer added inline comments.
================
Comment at: source/Plugins/SymbolFile/DWARF/DWARFDebugMacro.cpp:38-41
@@ +37,6 @@
+
+ if (flags & OPCODE_OPERANDS_TABLE_MASK)
+ {
+ OperandTable::ReadOperandTable(debug_macro_data, offset,
&header.m_operand_table);
+ }
+
----------------
If we can get rid of all OperandTable related data then this can become a call
to the SkipOperandTable function. (What is the purpose of the operand table if
you can process everything without using it?).
================
Comment at: source/Plugins/SymbolFile/DWARF/DWARFDebugMacro.h:49
@@ +48,3 @@
+ uint8_t m_entry_count;
+ std::map<uint8_t, OperandTableEntry> m_entry_map; // Mapping from
opcode number to its entry.
+
----------------
Constructing it is quite expensive as we insert a new entry for each operand
into a std::map what will involve a binary search and most likely a heap
allocation. As we don't use it for anything I would prefer to remove it because
we don't want to pay the computation cost required to create it for nothing. We
can add it back when we have a use case for it.
Going forward in this route I don't see any code reading
DWARFDebugMacroHeader::m_operand_table either. I might miss something but if
nobody is reading it then we can remove DWARFDebugMacroHeader::m_operand_table,
DWARFDebugMacroHeader::OperandTable, DWARFDebugMacroHeader::OperandTableEntry
and the call to DWARFDebugMacroHeader::OperandTable::ReadOperandTable what
would simplify the code and also improve the efficiency as we don't do a lot of
useless work.
================
Comment at: source/Plugins/SymbolFile/DWARF/SymbolFileDWARF.h:563
@@ +562,3 @@
+ typedef std::map<lldb::offset_t, lldb_private::DebugMacrosSP>
DebugMacrosMap;
+ DebugMacrosMap m_debug_macros_map;
+
----------------
Should we use std::map or std::unordered_map here?
http://reviews.llvm.org/D15437
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
