<div dir="ltr">Yes it does. This change allows us to write multiple output sections concurrently which actually improves throughput.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 9:14 AM, George Rimar <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:grimar@accesssoftek.com" target="_blank">grimar@accesssoftek.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">>Author: ruiu<br>
>Date: Sat Sep 30 19:25:34 2017<br>
>New Revision: 314616<br>
><br>
>URL: <a href="http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=314616&view=rev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-<wbr>project?rev=314616&view=rev</a><br>
>Log:<br>
>Run writeTo() concurrently.<br>
><br>
>I don't know why we didn't use parallelForEach to call writeTo,<br>
>but there should be no reason to not do that, as most writeTo<br>
>functions are safe to run concurrently.<br>
<br>
</span>We already were calling parallelForEachN inside OutputSection::writeTo()<br>
for proccessing input sections.<br>
Given that I wonder did this commit really speed up things ?<br>
I am asking mostly because of PR34806.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
George.<br>
<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>