https://github.com/jansvoboda11 closed
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/112452
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/vsapsai approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/112452
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/benlangmuir approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/112452
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
https://github.com/jansvoboda11 updated
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/112452
>From 6550eecf945d5a8537242646ef17b49b49eff859 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jan Svoboda
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2024 16:29:37 -0700
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] [clang][modules] Timestamp PCM files when writing
Clang
vsapsai wrote:
> > Have you checked the performance for incremental builds?
>
> I haven't, since I believe this change doesn't affect incremental builds at
> all.
Fair enough. I was thinking that you can achieve the same improvement by using
some contentionless-update-mtime function. But I ha
jansvoboda11 wrote:
> Have you checked the performance for incremental builds?
I haven't, since I believe this change doesn't affect incremental builds at all.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/112452
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@l
https://github.com/vsapsai commented:
I think the change makes sense. For example, for just-built .o files we assume
they are valid and up-to-date, and don't need any extra verification.
As far as I understand, your change helps with the clean builds. And I believe
incremental builds can still
@@ -4905,6 +4905,10 @@ ASTFileSignature ASTWriter::WriteAST(Sema &SemaRef,
StringRef OutputFile,
this->BaseDirectory.clear();
WritingAST = false;
+
+ if (WritingModule)
+updateModuleTimestamp(OutputFile);
vsapsai wrote:
Don't have a strong opinion a
https://github.com/vsapsai edited
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/112452
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
jansvoboda11 wrote:
The issue with the current state of things in Clang is that if you have N
instances waiting for a PCM file to be built, they all load the PCM file as
soon as the lock is released by the writer. They all find out that there's no
timestamp file and attempt to write it after t
@@ -4905,6 +4905,10 @@ ASTFileSignature ASTWriter::WriteAST(Sema &SemaRef,
StringRef OutputFile,
this->BaseDirectory.clear();
WritingAST = false;
+
+ if (WritingModule)
+updateModuleTimestamp(OutputFile);
ChuanqiXu9 wrote:
Yeah, I'd like to make suc
@@ -4905,6 +4905,10 @@ ASTFileSignature ASTWriter::WriteAST(Sema &SemaRef,
StringRef OutputFile,
this->BaseDirectory.clear();
WritingAST = false;
+
+ if (WritingModule)
+updateModuleTimestamp(OutputFile);
jansvoboda11 wrote:
Calling this here is a b
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang
Author: Jan Svoboda (jansvoboda11)
Changes
Clang uses timestamp files to track the last time an implicitly-built PCM file
was verified to be up-to-date with regard to its inputs. With
`-fbuild-session-{file,timestamp}=` and
`-fmodules-validate-
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-clang-modules
Author: Jan Svoboda (jansvoboda11)
Changes
Clang uses timestamp files to track the last time an implicitly-built PCM file
was verified to be up-to-date with regard to its inputs. With
`-fbuild-session-{file,timestamp}=` and
`-fmodules-v
https://github.com/jansvoboda11 created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/112452
Clang uses timestamp files to track the last time an implicitly-built PCM file
was verified to be up-to-date with regard to its inputs. With
`-fbuild-session-{file,timestamp}=` and
`-fmodules-validate-on
15 matches
Mail list logo
