Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "d13829".
Did you mean:
13829
2015 Oct 21
2
[RFC] Clean up the way we store optional Function data
...ctions) in a project. I've only tested on my machine, and I haven't accounted for performance variations in other parts of the codebase where code was removed.
I'm happy enough with the patch and think that this is a reasonable tradeoff. Should we go with this?
http://reviews.llvm.org/D13829
vedant
> On Oct 16, 2015, at 5:56 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote:
>
>
>> On 2015-Oct-16, at 13:54, Vedant Kumar <vsk at apple.com> wrote:
>>
>> Here is a WIP patch as promised:
>>
>> http://reviews.llvm.org/D13...
2015 Oct 16
2
[RFC] Clean up the way we store optional Function data
Here is a WIP patch as promised:
http://reviews.llvm.org/D13829
It uses a hungoff uselist to store optional data as needed.
Some early objections from Duncan:
- An extra one-time malloc() is required to set personality functions.
- We get and set personality functions frequently. This patch introduces a level of indirection which slows the common cas...
2015 Oct 12
2
[RFC] Clean up the way we store optional Function data
David Majnemer wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>
>
> > On 2015-Oct-12, at 10:41, Sanjoy Das
> <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com
> <mailto:sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com>> wrote:
> >
>