Displaying 2 results from an estimated 2 matches for "icbd".
Did you mean:
ibd
2014 Jan 10
3
[LLVMdev] Bitcode parsing performance
That was likely type information and should mostly be fixed up. It's still
not lazily loaded, but is going to be ridiculously smaller now.
-eric
On Fri Jan 10 2014 at 12:11:52 AM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote:
> This Summer I was working on LTO and Rafael mentioned to me that debug
> info is not lazy loaded, which was the cause for the insane resource usage
> I
2014 Jan 23
2
[LLVMdev] Bitcode parsing performance
...etadata !4020, null, metadata !"int64_t",
> i32 198, i64 0, i64 0, i64 0, i32 0, metadata !2258} ; [ DW_TAG_typedef ]
> [int64_t] [line 198, size 0, align 0, offset 0] [from long int]
>
> !3904 = metadata !{metadata !"runtime/int.cpp", metadata
> !"/home/kmod/icbd/jit"}
> !4020 = metadata !{metadata !"runtime/list.cpp", metadata
> !"/home/kmod/icbd/jit"}
>
> The file names are different for the two typedefs.
>
> Manman
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 12:14 AM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com>wro...