labath accepted this revision. labath added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
Thank you In https://reviews.llvm.org/D31451#715664, @eugene wrote: > In https://reviews.llvm.org/D31451#715649, @tberghammer wrote: > > > Because of this I think some targeted micro benchmark will be much more > > useful to measure the performance of this code then an end-to-end test as > > an e2e test would have low signal to noise ratio. > > > I did some micro-benchmarking and on average new parser is ~3 time slower > than the old one. (new parser - ~200k string/s, old parser - ~700k string/s) > clang::Lexer appears to be the slowest part of it. > I mitigate this performance loss, by calling simplified parsing code for > simple cases and calling new parser only when the old one fails. It was pretty clear that the new parser will be slower than the old one, even if I couldn't tell whether it would be 2x or 20x. That's why I wanted a macro benchmark to see whether that matters on the grand scale of things. If you say that 10% of time is name parsing, then we definitely don't want to make that 30%, which means the decision to use two parsers was correct. https://reviews.llvm.org/D31451 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
