search for: value_symtab_block

...e exact record formats within each of the THINLTO_*_BLOCKs are still TBD, but the following is an overview of what they will contain: THINLTO_SYMTAB_BLOCK This block contains a record for each function in the summary. The record will contain the ValueID of the corresponding function symbol in the VALUE_SYMTAB_BLOCK (which contains the function’s name string), as well as the bitcode offset of the corresponding function summary record. The latter enables fast seeking when the function summary section is read lazily. THINLTO_MODULE_STRTAB_BLOCK This block contains a record for each module with functions in the...

...h of the THINLTO_*_BLOCKs are still > TBD, but the following is an overview of what they will contain: > > THINLTO_SYMTAB_BLOCK > > This block contains a record for each function in the summary. The record > will contain the ValueID of the corresponding function symbol in the > VALUE_SYMTAB_BLOCK (which contains the function’s name string), as well as > the bitcode offset of the corresponding function summary record. The latter > enables fast seeking when the function summary section is read lazily. > THINLTO_MODULE_STRTAB_BLOCK > > This block contains a record for each modul...

...ID, > + FUNCTION_BLOCK_ID, // Deprecated in favor of FUNCTION_BLOCK_ID_REL FUNCTION_BLOCK_ID_REL -> FUNCTION_BLOCK_REL_ID Is there any point in having this on a per-function basis, why not have it be per-module? > > - UNUSED_ID2, > + FUNCTION_BLOCK_REL_ID, > > VALUE_SYMTAB_BLOCK_ID, > METADATA_BLOCK_ID, > @@ -257,8 +257,9 @@ namespace bitc { > SYNCHSCOPE_CROSSTHREAD = 1 > }; > > - // The function body block (FUNCTION_BLOCK_ID) describes function bodies. It > - // can contain a constant block (CONSTANTS_BLOCK_ID). > + // The function...

Hi all, I've been looking into how to make llvm bitcode files smaller. There is one simple change that appears to shrink linked bitcode files by about 15%. See this spreadsheet for some rough data: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjRrJHQc4_bddEtJdjdIek5fMDdIdFFIZldZXzdWa0E The change is in how operand ids are encoded in bitcode files. Rather than use an "absolute