https://github.com/ChuanqiXu9 closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/75894
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
ChuanqiXu9 wrote:
> Can we add a release note and documentation for this? Thanks!
The current patch is transparent to users and it is only part of the series
patches. I'd like to document that after I made the series of patches.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/75894
_
cor3ntin wrote:
Can we add a release note and documentation for this?
Thanks!
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/75894
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
iains wrote:
I have no further comments so LGTM if there are no objections from the other
reviewers this week.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/75894
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailm
ChuanqiXu9 wrote:
I am going to land this in the week later if no objections come in. I think it
is necessary to land the series of patches (to reduce the contents of BMI) for
clang19. And of course, the functionality will be opt in for one~two releases
for experimental.
https://github.com/ll
ChuanqiXu9 wrote:
> Do you expect to make any changes to type streaming?
I don't expect to do that explicitly. The number of types deserialized can be
decreased naturally after we avoid emitting declarations during the writing.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/75894
__
iains wrote:
Do you expect to make any changes to type streaming?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/75894
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
@@ -830,6 +843,19 @@ class PCHGenerator : public SemaConsumer {
bool hasEmittedPCH() const { return Buffer->IsComplete; }
};
+class ReducedBMIGenerator : public PCHGenerator {
+public:
+ ReducedBMIGenerator(const Preprocessor &PP, InMemoryModuleCache &ModuleCache,
+
ChuanqiXu9 wrote:
> * I do not want to block progress, so let's move forward with this patch for
> now.
Yeah. Great to see we have some progress finally. I think this is really
important since I see more and more peope complaninig the performance for
modules. I feel this series patch is key t
@@ -830,6 +843,19 @@ class PCHGenerator : public SemaConsumer {
bool hasEmittedPCH() const { return Buffer->IsComplete; }
};
+class ReducedBMIGenerator : public PCHGenerator {
+public:
+ ReducedBMIGenerator(const Preprocessor &PP, InMemoryModuleCache &ModuleCache,
+
iains wrote:
* I do not want to block progress, so let's move forward with this patch for
now.
* It seems to me (as we found with GMF decl elision) that the process is quite
a bit more complex than simply omitting a decl. We need to elide other decls
that are then unused (e.g. decls local t
ChuanqiXu9 wrote:
@iains @mizvekov ping~
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/75894
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
ChuanqiXu9 wrote:
@mizvekov would you like to take a look at this? This is related (in some
level) to what you say https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/79959. In
short, in the direction, in the one-phase compilation, the pcm won't be
compiled into object files. (But it still will in the t
ChuanqiXu9 wrote:
@iains would you like to take a look on this. I feel OK to not land this in 18
but I think it is really important to land this in 19. Although it is still
early to that, there are other works to do (e.g., the next patch and more
testing). So it may be better to start it earli
ChuanqiXu9 wrote:
> > Like I said in the commit message, this patch itself doesn't involve
> > anything relevant to user interfaces. I left it to the latter patches.
>
> Are you in a position to post the next patch (at least as a draft)? That
> would help me see the direction.
I post it here
iains wrote:
> Like I said in the commit message, this patch itself doesn't involve anything
> relevant to user interfaces. I left it to the latter patches.
Are you in a position to post the next patch (at least as a draft)? That would
help me see the direction.
> > * I was concerned from e
ChuanqiXu9 wrote:
> @ChuanqiXu9 very sorry for the slow review. It would help me if the design
> was described in the commit message instead of trying to deduce it from the
> patch (maybe it's in a thread somewhere - so a cross-reference would help).
hi @iains , sorry for the confusion. It may
iains wrote:
@ChuanqiXu9 very sorry for the slow review. It would help me if the design was
described in the commit message instead of trying to deduce it from the patch
(maybe it's in a thread somewhere - so a cross-reference would help).
two immediate questions and one observation:
- I see
ChuanqiXu9 wrote:
@iains @dwblaikie ping~
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/75894
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
ChuanqiXu9 wrote:
My impression to the feedbacks is that every one of us loves the direction,
while we may need more agreement on the user interfaces.
To make it easier to review, I split all the user interfaces related part to
following patches. So that the current patch won't affect users.
github-actions[bot] wrote:
:warning: C/C++ code formatter, clang-format found issues in your code.
:warning:
You can test this locally with the following command:
``bash
git-clang-format --diff cdc03926696d674c6aa61b55d5b509d7118ed023
6354bb468098f25b869deae3a475bf6bcfe37d40 --
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang-modules
Author: Chuanqi Xu (ChuanqiXu9)
Changes
Close https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/71034
See
https://discourse.llvm.org/t/rfc-c-20-modules-introduce-thin-bmi-and-decls-hash/74755
This patch introduces red
22 matches
Mail list logo
