search for: 760m

...GeForce GTX 650" }, { 0x11cb, "GeForce GT 740" }, - { 0x11e0, "GeForce GTX 770M" }, + { 0x11e0, "GeForce GTX 770M", nvkm_device_pci_10de_11e0 }, { 0x11e1, "GeForce GTX 765M" }, { 0x11e2, "GeForce GTX 765M" }, { 0x11e3, "GeForce GTX 760M", nvkm_device_pci_10de_11e3 }, -- 2.6.2

...{ 0x11cb, "GeForce GT 740" }, { 0x11e0, "GeForce GTX 770M", nvkm_device_pci_10de_11e0 }, { 0x11e1, "GeForce GTX 765M" }, - { 0x11e2, "GeForce GTX 765M" }, + { 0x11e2, "GeForce GTX 765M", nvkm_device_pci_10de_11e2 }, { 0x11e3, "GeForce GTX 760M", nvkm_device_pci_10de_11e3 }, { 0x11fa, "Quadro K4000" }, { 0x11fc, "Quadro K2100M", nvkm_device_pci_10de_11fc }, -- 2.4.10

...could take advantage of in a dwp-like tool) >>> >>> What build mode was the clang binary built in? Optimized or unoptimized? >> right, that is unoptimized build with -ffunction-sections. >> >>>> 2. DWARFLinker from lld = linking time for clang 72 sec, clang=760M. > And this is without Split DWARF? Without linker DWARF compression? - > that seems quite a bit surprising, that the deduplication of DWARF > could fit into less space than the wasted/reclaimed space in ranges (& > line)? that was without split dwarf, without linker compression....

...ol) >>>>> >>>>> What build mode was the clang binary built in? Optimized or unoptimized? >>>> right, that is unoptimized build with -ffunction-sections. >>>> >>>>>> 2. DWARFLinker from lld = linking time for clang 72 sec, clang=760M. >>> And this is without Split DWARF? Without linker DWARF compression? - >>> that seems quite a bit surprising, that the deduplication of DWARF >>> could fit into less space than the wasted/reclaimed space in ranges (& >>> line)? >> that was without sp...

...memory savings >that lld has that we could take advantage of in a dwp-like tool) > >What build mode was the clang binary built in? Optimized or unoptimized? right, that is unoptimized build with -ffunction-sections. >> 2. DWARFLinker from lld = linking time for clang 72 sec, clang=760M. >It does seem a tad strange that the clang binary would be smaller >non-split with DWARF linking than it was split. Though I could imagine >this might be possible in an optimized build (wehre debug_ranges >become quite relatively expensive in the .o file contribution with >Split DW...

...What build mode was the clang binary built in? Optimized or > unoptimized? > >>>> right, that is unoptimized build with -ffunction-sections. > >>>> > >>>>>> 2. DWARFLinker from lld = linking time for clang 72 sec, > clang=760M. > >>> And this is without Split DWARF? Without linker DWARF > compression? - > >>> that seems quite a bit surprising, that the deduplication of DWARF > >>> could fit into less space than the wasted/reclaimed space in > ranges (& &gt...

...the clang binary built in? Optimized or >>> unoptimized? >>> >>>> right, that is unoptimized build with -ffunction-sections. >>> >>>> >>> >>>>>> 2. DWARFLinker from lld = linking time for clang 72 sec, >>> clang=760M. >>> >>> And this is without Split DWARF? Without linker DWARF compression? - >>> >>> that seems quite a bit surprising, that the deduplication of DWARF >>> >>> could fit into less space than the wasted/reclaimed space in ranges >>> (&a...

...r pain point in >any case I'd guess. > I see. FWIW, Comparison splitdwarf+dwp and DWARFLinker from lld: 1. split-dwarf+llvm-dwp = linking time for clang 6 sec, generating time for .dwp 53 sec, clang=997M clang.dwp=1.1G. 2. DWARFLinker from lld = linking time for clang 72 sec, clang=760M. >> Thus if they would use this LLD feature in its current state >> - they would still receive benefits. >> >> Speaking of performance results - LLD is a multi-thread linker; >> it handles sections in parallel. DWARFLinker generates DWARF using >> AsmPrinter wh...

...build mode was the clang binary built in? Optimized or unoptimized? >>>> >>>> right, that is unoptimized build with -ffunction-sections. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> 2. DWARFLinker from lld = linking time for clang 72 sec, clang=760M. >>>> >>> And this is without Split DWARF? Without linker DWARF compression? - >>>> >>> that seems quite a bit surprising, that the deduplication of DWARF >>>> >>> could fit into less space than the wasted/reclaimed space in ranges (&am...

On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 12:41:49PM -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote: > On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 12:36 PM, Peter Wu <peter at lekensteyn.nl> wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 12:10:23PM -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote: > >> On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Peter Wu <peter at lekensteyn.nl> wrote: > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> > Here are two patches to fix

>> >> >Alexey> Probably we could try to make DWARF easy to parsing, trimming, rewriting so that full DWARF >> >> >Alexey> parsing solution would not take too much time? >> >> >Alexey> >> >> >Alexey> f.e. -debug-types-section solution uses COMDAT sections to split and deduplicate types. >> >> >Alexey> That