llvm dev - Oct 2012 - [LLVMdev] [PATCH / PROPOSAL] bitcode encoding that is ~15% smaller for large bitcode files...

Yes, I had about 133K hits for INST_PHI with a negative value, out of 136K
hits of any "INST_.*" with a negative valued operand.

Overall there were 474K INST_PHI and 12 million "INST_.*" in my tests.

- Jan


On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Rafael Espíndola <
rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote:
> This looks good to me.
>
> Just one question, you found that forward references are only common
> with phi operands, so it is not profitable to use a signed
> representation for other operands, right?
>
> Cheers,
> Rafael
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20121010/9b388cef/attachment.html>

On 10 October 2012 15:15, Jan Voung <jvoung at chromium.org>
wrote:
> Yes, I had about 133K hits for INST_PHI with a negative value, out of 136K
> hits of any "INST_.*" with a negative valued operand.
>
> Overall there were 474K INST_PHI and 12 million "INST_.*" in my
tests.
Cool!

Thanks again for working on this!
> - Jan
Cheers,
Rafael

Thanks for the review Rafael!

Chris, did you want to take a look at the patch too?

Thanks,
- Jan


On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Rafael Espíndola <
rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10 October 2012 15:15, Jan Voung <jvoung at chromium.org> wrote:
> > Yes, I had about 133K hits for INST_PHI with a negative value, out of
> 136K
> > hits of any "INST_.*" with a negative valued operand.
> >
> > Overall there were 474K INST_PHI and 12 million "INST_.*" in
my tests.
>
> Cool!
>
> Thanks again for working on this!
>
> > - Jan
>
> Cheers,
> Rafael
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20121010/7b9db3ec/attachment.html>