search for: d55056

Hi Osman, You can’t enable the static CRT through the command-line. You would need to apply this patch: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55056 (although it doesn’t work with lldb) Alex. ________________________________ De : llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> de la part de Osman Zakir via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Envoyé : 28 octobre 2019 07:47:43 À : llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <llvm-dev at lists.llvm...

Hi. I'm trying to build LLVM 10.0.0 with CMake on the command line (Developer Command Prompt for VS2019) and I need to know how to switch to a static runtime. I've tried setting LLVM's variable for this, but it didn't work. I still have a dynamic runtime. Along with that, I also need to know how to enable C++ exceptions. One thing I tried was to do

...? There's a big difference between when using MSVC vs Clang. The parallel ghash patch I was mentioning is almost 2x as fast when using Clang 7.0+ vs. MSVC 15.9+, I don't know exactly why. I also suggest you use the Release target. You should also grab this patch: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55056 - I had to revert it because it was causing issues with LLDB. But it will give an improvement for LLD. Please let me know if that improves your timings. The page faults are probably the OS loading from disk: most, if not all the files are accessed by LLD by mmap'ing them. The lockless Den...

...difference between when using > MSVC vs Clang. The parallel ghash patch I was mentioning is almost 2x > as fast when using Clang 7.0+ vs. MSVC 15.9+, I don't know exactly > why. I also suggest you use the Release target. You should also grab this patch: > https://reviews.llvm.org/D55056 - I had to revert it because it was > causing issues with LLDB. But it will give an improvement for LLD. > Please let me know if that improves your timings. > > The page faults are probably the OS loading from disk: most, if not > all the files are accessed by LLD by mmap'ing t...

...hen using > > MSVC vs Clang. The parallel ghash patch I was mentioning is almost > > 2x as fast when using Clang 7.0+ vs. MSVC 15.9+, I don't know > > exactly why. I also suggest you use the Release target. You should also grab this patch: > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D55056 - I had to revert it because it was > > causing issues with LLDB. But it will give an improvement for LLD. > > Please let me know if that improves your timings. > > > > The page faults are probably the OS loading from disk: most, if not > > all the files are accessed...

...vs Clang. The parallel ghash patch I was mentioning is almost >> > > 2x as fast when using Clang 7.0+ vs. MSVC 15.9+, I don't know >> > > exactly why. I also suggest you use the Release target. You should also grab this patch: >> > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D55056 - I had to revert it because it was >> > > causing issues with LLDB. But it will give an improvement for LLD. >> > > Please let me know if that improves your timings. >> > > >> > > The page faults are probably the OS loading from disk: most, if not &g...

...parallel ghash patch I was mentioning is almost > >> > > 2x as fast when using Clang 7.0+ vs. MSVC 15.9+, I don't know > >> > > exactly why. I also suggest you use the Release target. You should also grab this patch: > >> > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D55056 - I had to revert it because it was > >> > > causing issues with LLDB. But it will give an improvement for LLD. > >> > > Please let me know if that improves your timings. > >> > > > >> > > The page faults are probably the OS loading from d...

...vs Clang. The parallel ghash patch I was mentioning is almost >> > > 2x as fast when using Clang 7.0+ vs. MSVC 15.9+, I don't know >> > > exactly why. I also suggest you use the Release target. You should also grab this patch: >> > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D55056 - I had to revert it because it was >> > > causing issues with LLDB. But it will give an improvement for LLD. >> > > Please let me know if that improves your timings. >> > > >> > > The page faults are probably the OS loading from disk: most, if not &g...

...patch I was mentioning > > >> > > is almost 2x as fast when using Clang 7.0+ vs. MSVC 15.9+, I > > >> > > don't know exactly why. I also suggest you use the Release target. You should also grab this patch: > > >> > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D55056 - I had to revert it because it > > >> > > was causing issues with LLDB. But it will give an improvement for LLD. > > >> > > Please let me know if that improves your timings. > > >> > > > > >> > > The page faults are probably t...

...t; > >> > > is almost 2x as fast when using Clang 7.0+ vs. MSVC 15.9+, I > > > > >> > > don't know exactly why. I also suggest you use the Release > target. You should also grab this patch: > > > > >> > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D55056 - I had to revert it because > it > > > > >> > > was causing issues with LLDB. But it will give an improvement > for LLD. > > > > >> > > Please let me know if that improves your timings. > > > > >> > > > > > >...

Leonardo, to answer to your questions, yes to all of them  You can take a look at this prototype/proposal: https://reviews.llvm.org/D55585 Overall, computing ghashes in parallel at link-time and merging Types with them is less costly that the current approach to merging. The 35sec you’re seeing for merging should go down to about 15sec. The patch doesn’t parallelize (yet) the Type merging

...tioning > > > >> > > is almost 2x as fast when using Clang 7.0+ vs. MSVC 15.9+, I > > > >> > > don't know exactly why. I also suggest you use the Release target. You should also grab this patch: > > > >> > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D55056 - I had to revert it because it > > > >> > > was causing issues with LLDB. But it will give an improvement for LLD. > > > >> > > Please let me know if that improves your timings. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > The page f...