search for: module_code_

...t; > I’m in favor of this, but note that currently string can be encoded with > less than 8 bits / char in some cases (there might some size increase > because of this). > That said we already paid this with the metadata table in the recent past > for example. > > The format of MODULE_CODE_{FUNCTION,GLOBALVAR,ALIAS,IFUNC,COMDAT} > records would change so that their first operand would specify their names > with a byte offset into the string table. (To allow for backwards > compatibility, I would increment the bitcode version.) > > > I assume you mean the EPOCH? >...

...ames to be shared with value names, make bitcode files more compressible and make bitcode easier to parse). The format of the string table would be a top-level block containing a blob containing null-terminated strings [0] similar to the string table format used in most object files. The format of MODULE_CODE_{FUNCTION,GLOBALVAR,ALIAS,IFUNC,COMDAT} records would change so that their first operand would specify their names with a byte offset into the string table. (To allow for backwards compatibility, I would increment the bitcode version.) Here is what it would look like as bcanalyzer output: <MODUL...

...ent to read is a relatively small part of the data in the bitcode file. The same logic applies to the symbol table (note that we use support::ulittle32_t instead of a bit encoding). That said we already paid this with the metadata table in the recent past > for example. > > The format of MODULE_CODE_{FUNCTION,GLOBALVAR,ALIAS,IFUNC,COMDAT} > records would change so that their first operand would specify their names > with a byte offset into the string table. (To allow for backwards > compatibility, I would increment the bitcode version.) > > > I assume you mean the EPOCH? >...

...art of the data in the > bitcode file. The same logic applies to the symbol table (note that we use > support::ulittle32_t instead of a bit encoding). > > That said we already paid this with the metadata table in the recent past >> for example. >> > >> The format of MODULE_CODE_{FUNCTION,GLOBALVAR,ALIAS,IFUNC,COMDAT} >> records would change so that their first operand would specify their names >> with a byte offset into the string table. (To allow for backwards >> compatibility, I would increment the bitcode version.) >> >> >> I assume y...

...ding pretty much every existing object file format already requires scanning for string lengths. Certainly something to try and evaluate, at least. Peter > > That said we already paid this with the metadata table in the recent past >> for example. >> > >> The format of MODULE_CODE_{FUNCTION,GLOBALVAR,ALIAS,IFUNC,COMDAT} >> records would change so that their first operand would specify their names >> with a byte offset into the string table. (To allow for backwards >> compatibility, I would increment the bitcode version.) >> >> >> I assume y...