search for: d13251

...ata use case is not changed at all). > > Pros: > 1. All the pros from Solution-1 > 2. Size savings for coverage-mapping case > Cons: > Format change is required for profile data and coverage mapping. > > The initial patch is here: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13251 > > With this patch, the size of a release clang binary with coverage mapping is > reduced from 986M to 569M. > > If there are no major concerns, I will carve out the patch into smaller > ones for review. > > thanks, > > David > > > > > > > > O...

...gt;> > 1. All the pros from Solution-1 >> > 2. Size savings for coverage-mapping case >> > Cons: >> > Format change is required for profile data and coverage mapping. >> > >> > The initial patch is here: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13251 >> > >> > With this patch, the size of a release clang binary with coverage >> > mapping is >> > reduced from 986M to 569M. >> > >> > If there are no major concerns, I will carve out the patch into smaller >> > ones for review. >&gt...

...Solution-1 >>>> > 2. Size savings for coverage-mapping case >>>> > Cons: >>>> > Format change is required for profile data and coverage mapping. >>>> > >>>> > The initial patch is here: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13251 >>>> > >>>> > With this patch, the size of a release clang binary with coverage >>>> > mapping is >>>> > reduced from 986M to 569M. >>>> > >>>> > If there are no major concerns, I will carve out the patch int...

>> >> >> >> yes -- it is fixed length (8byte) blob which may include null byte in >> >> the middle. >> > >> > >> > For reference, MD5 sum is 16 bytes (128-bit): >> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MD5 >> >> yes, LLVM's MD5 hash only takes the lower 64bit. >> >> >> > >> >>