[PATCH] D17028: [ThinLTO] Use MD5 hash in function index.

[David Li via llvm-commits]

davidxl accepted this revision.
davidxl added a comment.

lgtm


================
Comment at: test/tools/gold/X86/thinlto.ll:27-28
@@ -26,4 +26,4 @@
 ; COMBINED-NEXT: <VALUE_SYMTAB
-; COMBINED-NEXT: <COMBINED_FNENTRY {{.*}} record string = '{{f|g}}'
-; COMBINED-NEXT: <COMBINED_FNENTRY {{.*}} record string = '{{f|g}}'
+; COMBINED-NEXT: <COMBINED_FNENTRY abbrevid={{[0-9]+}} op0={{[0-9]+}} op1={{-3706093650706652785|-5300342847281564238}}
+; COMBINED-NEXT: <COMBINED_FNENTRY abbrevid={{[0-9]+}} op0={{[0-9]+}} op1={{-3706093650706652785|-5300342847281564238}}
 ; COMBINED-NEXT: </VALUE_SYMTAB
----------------
tejohnson wrote:
> joker.eph wrote:
> > What is the op1 here? Is it the 64 low-bits of the MD5 as an int?
> > Can we have a better pretty-print from llvm-bcanalyzer? (don't hold this patch for this though)
> Yes, op0 is the bitcode offset of the summary, and op0 is the MD5 as an int. I will add a comment to these tests to enumerate the format before committing.
> 
> Would you rather see the values printed in hex? The bcanalyzer just prints all record values as ints, it doesn't look at the record type to determine the best format. That would require more plumbing in the bcanalyzer than I'm thinking this is worth. Probably the easiest thing would be to add an option to llvm-bcanalyzer to dump all record values in hex.
nit -- for better reading, probably just need to keep one line with actual MD5 value, the rest can be replaced with [0-9]+


http://reviews.llvm.org/D17028