[PATCH] D15999: Adding doxygen comments to the LLVM intrinsics (part 2, _wmmintrin_pclmul.h)

[Eric Christopher via cfe-commits]

I have some benchmarks, but none of them moved when I added the support
that I could see. It wouldn't catch small regressions though.

-eric

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 3:17 PM Romanova, Katya <
Katya_Romanova at playstation.sony.com> wrote:

> I see. I was hoping that if you were, I could have used the same benchmark
> and compare what build time increase caused by using target attributes
> (might be much more substantial) and  by adding doxygen comments.
>
>
>
> *From:* Eric Christopher [mailto:echristo at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 20, 2016 3:09 PM
> *To:* reviews+D15999+public+772a9901b981d210 at reviews.llvm.org; Romanova,
> Katya; gribozavr at gmail.com; jonathan at codesourcery.com; Gao, Yunzhong;
> Sean Silva
> *Cc:* cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org
> *Subject:* Re: [PATCH] D15999: Adding doxygen comments to the LLVM
> intrinsics (part 2, _wmmintrin_pclmul.h)
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 2:32 PM Katya Romanova via cfe-commits <
> cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> kromanova added a comment.
>
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D15999#330794, @silvas wrote:
>
> > This may sound stupid, but: can you benchmark the time it takes to build
> some project (that actually uses intrinsics in most translation units, e.g.
> a game) with the headers w/ and w/o the doxygen comments to check that all
> the extra comment skipping doesn't affect compilation time? I.e. run your
> script to add the comments for "all" the intrinsic headers (similar to what
> you expect the final state to be after all these patches) and test the
> build time of a game (and compare with the unmodified headers).
> >
> > Also, can you post a patch that changes "all" the headers to have
> doxygen comments like you intend, so that others can test and verify?
>
>
> Out of curiosity, do you know if the impact to the build time for Eric's
> change of starting to use the target attributes instead of conditional
> inclusion was measured (r239883) on a large scale application. If so, what
> were the results? I should probably include Eric.
>
>
>
> I did not as the feature compatibility was fairly important here. That
> said, I don't really expect the compile time difference for the comment
> skipping to matter in any large way and having documentation seems pretty
> nice.
>
>
>
> -eric
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/attachments/20160120/6efb6674/attachment-0001.html>