bulbazord added a comment.
In D152476#4408654 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D152476#4408654>, @fdeazeve wrote:
> This is awesome! I believe you said there was no measurable perf diff?
Yeah, my initial experiments measured no significant perf difference no matter
how you built lldb. llvm's and lldb's `DWARFAbbreviationDeclarationSet`
implementations both use llvm's `DWARFAbbreviationDeclaration` and have the
same semantics around their extraction. I intentionally made both
implementations behave the exact same so that this change would be as simple as
possible.
================
Comment at: lldb/source/Plugins/SymbolFile/DWARF/DWARFDebugAbbrev.cpp:62
std::set<dw_form_t> &invalid_forms) const {
- for (const auto &pair : m_abbrevCollMap)
- pair.second.GetUnsupportedForms(invalid_forms);
+ for (const auto &pair : m_abbrevCollMap) {
+ for (const auto &decl : pair.second) {
----------------
aprantl wrote:
> nit: LLVM coding style would probably elide the {}
Will update, thanks!
================
Comment at: lldb/source/Plugins/SymbolFile/DWARF/DWARFDebugAbbrev.h:23
typedef std::map<dw_offset_t, DWARFAbbreviationDeclarationSet>
DWARFAbbreviationDeclarationCollMap;
----------------
aprantl wrote:
> for a later commit: this should probably be a DenseMap for better performance?
Possibly? It would be interesting to switch away from std::map to a different
type (like DenseMap) to measure performance. Either way, I also want to switch
us to use `llvm::DWARFDebugAbbrev`, so it might be worth doing that work first.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D152476/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D152476
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
