Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "finail".
Did you mean:
final
2013 Oct 14
2
[LLVMdev] [Debug Info + LTO] Type Uniquing for C types?
...ules for
merging C types do not apply), would you
like it to be done on AST types or IR debug info metadata types?
One possibility is to hash the IR debug info types in DIBuilder::finalize.
When we are creating the MD nodes, we can provide a simple identifier that
is unique within the DIBuider. In finailize(),
we update the identifier to include a hash value (prepend the type name),
so types constructed by one DIBuilder will be unique
from types constructed by another DIBUilder unless they are structurally
equivalent by having the same hash.
We can then use the folding set to do the uniquing acros...
2013 Oct 11
0
[LLVMdev] [Debug Info + LTO] Type Uniquing for C types?
>> It depends upon the goals. If the goal is to make debug information
>> post-link smaller then just using the type hashing machinery for
>> structs will be sufficient.
>
>
> By "the type hashing machinery for structs", are you referring to the type
> hashing at the back end?
>
I am, yes, since there's no other place we do currently.
>>
2013 Oct 14
0
[LLVMdev] [Debug Info + LTO] Type Uniquing for C types?
...ng?
Thanks,
Manman
would you like it to be done on AST types or IR debug info metadata types?
>
> One possibility is to hash the IR debug info types in DIBuilder::finalize.
> When we are creating the MD nodes, we can provide a simple identifier that
> is unique within the DIBuider. In finailize(),
> we update the identifier to include a hash value (prepend the type name),
> so types constructed by one DIBuilder will be unique
> from types constructed by another DIBUilder unless they are structurally
> equivalent by having the same hash.
>
> We can then use the folding...
2013 Oct 11
2
[LLVMdev] [Debug Info + LTO] Type Uniquing for C types?
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com>wrote:
> >
> > Since we don't have ODR, we may have macros defined differently for a
> struct
> > in a .h file,
> > thus having two versions of the struct from two different CU. It seems
> that
> > we can't assume
> > structs with the same name and defined in the same