Displaying 1 result from an estimated 1 matches for "1050124".
Did you mean:
100124
2015 Oct 08
5
RFC: Reducing Instr PGO size overhead
There is no further response to this, so I will assume general
direction of solution-3 is acceptable ;)
Solution-3 can be further improved. Instead of using static symbol
table (with zero size __llvm_prf_nm symbols) to store function names
for profile display and coverage mapping, the function names can be
stored compressed in a non-allocatable section. The compression ratio
for function name