================
@@ -223,10 +249,31 @@ class StaleMatcher {
return Hash1.InstrHash == Hash2.InstrHash;
}
+ /// Returns true if a profiled block was matched with its pseudo probe.
+ bool isPseudoProbeMatch(BlendedBlockHash YamlBBHash) {
+ return MatchedWithPseudoProbes.find(YamlBBHash.combine()) !=
+ MatchedWithPseudoProbes.end();
+ }
+
+ /// Returns the number of blocks matched with opcodes.
+ size_t getNumBlocksMatchedWithOpcodes() const { return MatchedWithOpcodes; }
+
+ /// Returns the number of blocks matched with pseudo probes.
+ size_t getNumBlocksMatchedWithPseudoProbes() const {
+ return MatchedWithPseudoProbes.size();
+ }
+
private:
using HashBlockPairType = std::pair<BlendedBlockHash, FlowBlock *>;
std::unordered_map<uint16_t, std::vector<HashBlockPairType>> OpHashToBlocks;
std::unordered_map<uint64_t, std::vector<HashBlockPairType>>
CallHashToBlocks;
+ std::unordered_map<uint64_t, std::vector<const MCDecodedPseudoProbe *>>
----------------
WenleiHe wrote:
@dcci DenseMap or LLVM ADT isn't generally better. we have a ton of undered_map
throughout the code base, and we have benchmarked some cases carefully between
the two, and DenseMap sometimes uses a lot more memory, as a result many uses
of undered_map were intentional.
If memory is of a concern (probe decoding and holding probe forest generally
isn't cheap), I'm not sure DenseMap will help us.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/99891
_______________________________________________
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
