Displaying 2 results from an estimated 2 matches for "densemap_membermap".
2015 Mar 18
5
[LLVMdev] On LLD performance
...) even if the nodes
> themselves involve indirection. Could be worth an experiment.
>
I did now. It actually makes things slower for the aforementioned
workload (linking clang). It was worth trying though.
Patch, in case somebody wants to try at home:
https://people.freebsd.org/~davide/llvm/densemap_membermap.diff
Patched:
real 1m27.849s user 2m47.373s sys 0m16.370s
real 1m29.583s user 2m47.771s sys 0m16.816s
real 1m25.956s user 2m43.397s sys 0m15.254s
real 1m29.380s user 2m47.618s sys 0m15.386s
real 1m25.426s user 2m43.388s sys 0m16.961s...
2015 Mar 17
6
[LLVMdev] On LLD performance
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 1:54 AM, Davide Italiano <davide at freebsd.org> wrote:
>
> Shankar's parallel for per-se didn't introduce any performance benefit
> (or regression).
> If the change I propose is safe, I would like to see Shankar's change
> in (and this on top of it).
> I have other related changes coming next, but I would like to tackle
> them one at