[lld] r319518 - Add an additional test for r319503.

[Rui Ueyama via llvm-commits]

I don't have time at the moment too, so filed as
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35536 to not forget this.

On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 8:38 AM, Rafael Avila de Espindola <
rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote:

> Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> writes:
>
> > 960 and 1031 aren't that different, and not using the prime number
> > shouldn't make change as long as the lengths of hash chains are not too
> > biased (which I believe true).
> >
> > I took a quick look at `do_lookup_x` function in elf/dl-lookup.c in
> glibc,
> > and looks like the penalty of hash collision is pretty low there (we just
> > need to skip a uint32_t value for each collision.)
> >
> > So the difference is interesting.
>
> I honestly don't have the time to test it further, but it is pretty
> simple to experiment if you are interested:
>
> * Build a regular release of llvm+clang+lld in directory build.
> * Mount a tmpfs in build2
> * Use build to configure (cmake) a llvm in build2 with BUILD_SHARED_LIBS
> * Run ninja check-llvm
> * Run perf stat/record llvm-lit ... (copy and past the command from
>   ninja -v check-llvm)
>
> Cheers,
> Rafael
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20171205/f2dfba7c/attachment.html>