[llvm-dev] Making LLD PDB generation faster
David Blaikie via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Thu Feb 28 11:35:36 PST 2019
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 3:17 PM Leonardo Santagada via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> My problem was that some library was still built with lto and I think that
> forces lld to do lto, but contrary to msvc it doesn't do any warning about
> it.
>
> I think we are going to try sharding the ghashes to multiple threads and
> have a hashmap that only contains the index to a list of seen types. This
> way we hope there's no need for any locking.
>
> Also we are investigating why we have 420 million types being linked while
> it appears that 95-99 % of them are not being used. De anyone know if pch
> can help here? My feeling is not much as template instantiation still
> generates a ton of weak symbols on the pch users, but I might be confused.
>
PCH probably doesn't help by itself - modular code generation (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYYxDXgbUZ0 ) can remove a lot of the
duplication, but requires teaching your build system new tricks (&
modularizing the code itself).
Also, I forget if Windows is using -fstandalone-debug by default, I think
it did for a while (& I forget why). If there was a way to avoid that, it'd
also reduce duplication.
>
> Also another idea is to create lib files with types and hashes merged,
> where is llvm-lib source at? It seems funny but I don't seem to find it
> anywhere.
>
> Ps: the cmake bug for using llvm in visual studio projects has been fixed
> upstream.
>
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 at 20:10, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote:
>
>> This could be ICF. There were lots of issues with ICF on ARM64, but they
>> are not inherently ARM64-specific, they just come up there more often. See
>> https://reviews.llvm.org/D56986 which fixes that.
>>
>> Easiest thing is always to profile or add /time to see what's slow.
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 6:30 AM Leonardo Santagada <santagada at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Anyone would know why lld takes > 30 minutes to link lld without
>>> symbols on release?
>>>
>>> The command line seems simple enough:
>>>
>>> C:\PROGRA~1\LLVM\bin\lld-link.exe /nologo @CMakeFiles\lld.rsp
>>> /out:bin\lld.exe /implib:lib\lld.lib /version:0.0 /machine:x64
>>> -fuse-ld=lld /STACK:10000000 /INCREMENTAL:NO /subsystem:console
>>> /MANIFEST /MANIFESTFILE:bin\lld.exe.manifest
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 8:20 PM Leonardo Santagada <santagada at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Sadly the patch on https://reviews.llvm.org/D55585 didn't apply on my
>>> > clone of llvm at all :( It will take me quite some time to test this
>>> > out.
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 5:08 PM Alexandre Ganea
>>> > <alexandre.ganea at ubisoft.com> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > For enabling large memory pages, see this link:
>>> https://support.sisoftware.co.uk/knowledgebase.php?article=52
>>> > >
>>> > > Meow hash isn't in the patch I posted, but you can use xxHash, it is
>>> good enough. Just add /hasher:xxhash to the LLD cmd-line.
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > -----Original Message-----
>>> > > From: Leonardo Santagada <santagada at gmail.com>
>>> > > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2019 11:05 AM
>>> > > To: Alexandre Ganea <alexandre.ganea at ubisoft.com>
>>> > > Cc: Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com>; Reid Kleckner <
>>> rnk at google.com>; llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>>> > > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Making LLD PDB generation faster
>>> > >
>>> > > Times for lld compiled with LTO:
>>> > >
>>> > > Input File Reading: 1430 ms ( 3.3%)
>>> > > Code Layout: 486 ms ( 1.1%)
>>> > > PDB Emission (Cumulative): 41042 ms ( 94.6%)
>>> > > Add Objects: 33117 ms ( 76.4%)
>>> > > Type Merging: 25861 ms ( 59.6%)
>>> > > Symbol Merging: 7011 ms ( 16.2%)
>>> > > TPI Stream Layout: 996 ms ( 2.3%)
>>> > > Globals Stream Layout: 513 ms ( 1.2%)
>>> > > Commit to Disk: 5175 ms ( 11.9%)
>>> > > Commit Output File: 37 ms ( 0.1%)
>>> > > -------------------------------------------------
>>> > > Total Link Time: 43366 ms (100.0%)
>>> > >
>>> > > LTO didn't help much :(
>>> > >
>>> > > Now I will try Alexandre patches and switch fo xxHash64 or meow
>>> hashing. I need to discover how to enable huge pages on my windows
>>> > > (1809)
>>> > >
>>> > > ps: Need to figure out how to limit the number of link jobs in ninja
>>> as that almost used the whole 128GB of ram on my machine. On our
>>> distributed build system we can limit linking jobs (which are the only
>>> strict local jobs) to 8.
>>> > >
>>> > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 4:47 PM Alexandre Ganea <
>>> alexandre.ganea at ubisoft.com> wrote:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > …however it is very slow to compile, because /MP isn’t currently
>>> supported by clang-cl. So each CPP is compiled sequentially, one after
>>> another. Thus my patch for adding /MP.
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > From: Alexandre Ganea
>>> > > > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2019 10:42 AM
>>> > > > To: Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com>; Leonardo Santagada
>>> > > > <santagada at gmail.com>
>>> > > > Cc: Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com>; llvm-dev <
>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>>> > > > Subject: RE: [llvm-dev] Making LLD PDB generation faster
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Yes, -Tllvm works.
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > From: Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com>
>>> > > > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2019 10:36 AM
>>> > > > To: Leonardo Santagada <santagada at gmail.com>
>>> > > > Cc: Alexandre Ganea <alexandre.ganea at ubisoft.com>; Reid Kleckner
>>> > > > <rnk at google.com>; llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>>> > > > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Making LLD PDB generation faster
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Is -Tllvm even supported? I thought the only thing you could pass
>>> for
>>> > > > -T was -Thost=x64
>>> > > >
>>> > > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 6:52 AM Leonardo Santagada <
>>> santagada at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > I think its a huge bug that it doesn't raise any errors or warnings
>>> > > > about it. But I will open a ticket on cmake, they should be using
>>> > > > clang-cl.exe and lld-link.exe if T="llvm" probably set host to 64
>>> bit
>>> > > > as well.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 3:34 PM Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > I don’t think changing the compiler or linker is supported with
>>> the
>>> > > > > vs generator, but I also don’t think it’s a bug On Mon, Feb 25,
>>> 2019 at 6:31 AM Alexandre Ganea <alexandre.ganea at ubisoft.com> wrote:
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >> Can you please try using Ninja instead?
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >> cmake -G Ninja f:/svn/llvm -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release
>>> > > > >> -DLLVM_OPTIMIZED_TABLEGEN=true
>>> > > > >> -DLLVM_EXTERNAL_LLD_SOURCE_DIR=f:/svn/lld
>>> > > > >> -DLLVM_TOOL_LLD_BUILD=true -DLLVM_ENABLE_LLD=true
>>> > > > >> -DCMAKE_C_COMPILER="C:/Program Files/LLVM/bin/clang-cl.exe"
>>> > > > >> -DCMAKE_CXX_COMPILER="C:/Program Files/LLVM/bin/clang-cl.exe"
>>> > > > >> -DCMAKE_LINKER="C:/Program Files/LLVM/bin/lld-link.exe"
>>> > > > >> -DLLVM_ENABLE_PDB=true
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >> It will be faster to compile. The setup I use is the above
>>> Ninja cmd-line for compiling optimized builds; and in addition, I keep the
>>> Visual Studio generator, as you do, but only for having a .sln to debug. It
>>> is a bit annoying to cmake twice, in two different build folders, but you
>>> can write a batch script.
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >> If the above works, maybe you should log the bug on
>>> https://bugs.llvm.org/ so it is not forgotten.
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >> Alex.
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >> -----Original Message-----
>>> > > > >> From: Leonardo Santagada <santagada at gmail.com>
>>> > > > >> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2019 9:04 AM
>>> > > > >> To: Alexandre Ganea <alexandre.ganea at ubisoft.com>
>>> > > > >> Cc: Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com>; Reid Kleckner
>>> > > > >> <rnk at google.com>; llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>>> > > > >> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Making LLD PDB generation faster
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >> Ok so there's a lot of confusion on cmake regarding using llvm
>>> as a toolset. It still does all its checks against cl.exe (not clang-cl)
>>> and somehow overriders CMAKE_LINKER to be link.exe. I tried a couple of
>>> places including:
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >> cmake -G "Visual Studio 15 2017" -A x64 -T"llvm",host=x64
>>> -DCMAKE_LINKER="C:/Program Files/LLVM/bin/lld-link.exe"
>>> > > > >> -DCMAKE_CXX_COMPILER="C:/Program Files/LLVM/bin/clang-cl.exe"
>>> > > > >> -DCMAKE_C_COMPILER="C:/Program Files/LLVM/bin/clang-cl.exe"
>>> > > > >> -DLLVM_ENABLE_LTO=true -DLLVM_ENABLE_PDB=true
>>> > > > >> -DLLVM_ENABLE_PROJECTS=lld ../llvm
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >> but it seems like the generator overrides it.
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >> ps: Created a phabricator account
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >> On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 2:48 PM Alexandre Ganea <
>>> alexandre.ganea at ubisoft.com> wrote:
>>> > > > >> >
>>> > > > >> > That's good news. For having debug info, you could try adding
>>> /Z7 on the cmake cmd-line, such as -DCMAKE_CXX_FLAGS="/Z7". Or use the
>>> 'RelWithDebInfo' target instead of 'Release' and add
>>> -DCMAKE_CXX_FLAGS="/Ob2" (because that target uses /Ob1 as a default).
>>> > > > >> >
>>> > > > >> > Can you please send a patch on Phabricator if you fix the
>>> LLVM_ENABLE_PDB issue with Clang? The goal is to have performance
>>> out-of-the-box.
>>> > > > >> >
>>> > > > >> > Alex.
>>> > > > >> >
>>> > > > >> > -----Original Message-----
>>> > > > >> > From: Leonardo Santagada <santagada at gmail.com>
>>> > > > >> > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2019 7:36 AM
>>> > > > >> > To: Alexandre Ganea <alexandre.ganea at ubisoft.com>
>>> > > > >> > Cc: Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com>; Reid Kleckner
>>> > > > >> > <rnk at google.com>; llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>>> > > > >> > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Making LLD PDB generation faster
>>> > > > >> >
>>> > > > >> > With your patch for cmake and reconfiguring it with "cmake -G
>>> "Visual Studio 15 2017" -A x64 -T"llvm",host=x64 -DLLVM_ENABLE_PDB=true
>>> -DLLVM_ENABLE_PROJECTS=lld ../llvm" we get these results:
>>> > > > >> >
>>> > > > >> > Input File Reading: 1602 ms ( 3.5%)
>>> > > > >> > Code Layout: 493 ms ( 1.1%)
>>> > > > >> > PDB Emission (Cumulative): 43127 ms ( 94.5%)
>>> > > > >> > Add Objects: 34577 ms ( 75.8%)
>>> > > > >> > Type Merging: 26709 ms ( 58.5%)
>>> > > > >> > Symbol Merging: 7598 ms ( 16.7%)
>>> > > > >> > TPI Stream Layout: 1107 ms ( 2.4%)
>>> > > > >> > Globals Stream Layout: 602 ms ( 1.3%)
>>> > > > >> > Commit to Disk: 5636 ms ( 12.4%)
>>> > > > >> > Commit Output File: 16 ms ( 0.0%)
>>> > > > >> > -------------------------------------------------
>>> > > > >> > Total Link Time: 45626 ms (100.0%)
>>> > > > >> >
>>> > > > >> > Unfortunately there were no pdb generated with lld.exe (or any
>>> > > > >> > other
>>> > > > >> > binaries) so I can't debug them. It seems like
>>> LLVM_ENABLE_PDB is not made to support using clang to complie itself as it
>>> tries to att /Zi to the targets instead of /Z7 and global hashes. I can
>>> patch it over here, but we probably want to fix this in cmake and on the
>>> docs, as its not clear at all how to compile lld in a performance 64bit way.
>>> > > > >> >
>>> > > > >> > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 2:38 AM Alexandre Ganea <
>>> alexandre.ganea at ubisoft.com> wrote:
>>> > > > >> > >
>>> > > > >> > > How do you compile LLD? There's a big difference between
>>> when
>>> > > > >> > > using MSVC vs Clang. The parallel ghash patch I was
>>> mentioning
>>> > > > >> > > is almost 2x as fast when using Clang 7.0+ vs. MSVC 15.9+, I
>>> > > > >> > > don't know exactly why. I also suggest you use the Release
>>> target. You should also grab this patch:
>>> > > > >> > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D55056 - I had to revert it
>>> because it
>>> > > > >> > > was causing issues with LLDB. But it will give an
>>> improvement for LLD.
>>> > > > >> > > Please let me know if that improves your timings.
>>> > > > >> > >
>>> > > > >> > > The page faults are probably the OS loading from disk:
>>> most, if
>>> > > > >> > > not all the files are accessed by LLD by mmap'ing them.
>>> > > > >> > >
>>> > > > >> > > The lockless DenseHash I was talking about will be
>>> published in
>>> > > > >> > > an upcoming patch. As for reproducibility, this can be an
>>> issue
>>> > > > >> > > on build systems. But on local machines, we could explicitly
>>> > > > >> > > state that we want non-deterministic builds, through some
>>> cmd-line flag. If your 57sec for "Type Merging"
>>> > > > >> > > transforms into 5sec when non-deterministic, I think that's
>>> worth it.
>>> > > > >> > >
>>> > > > >> > > Alex.
>>> > > > >> > >
>>> > > > >> > > -----Original Message-----
>>> > > > >> > > From: Leonardo Santagada <santagada at gmail.com>
>>> > > > >> > > Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2019 6:43 PM
>>> > > > >> > > To: Alexandre Ganea <alexandre.ganea at ubisoft.com>
>>> > > > >> > > Cc: Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com>; Reid Kleckner
>>> > > > >> > > <rnk at google.com>; llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>>> > > > >> > > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Making LLD PDB generation faster
>>> > > > >> > >
>>> > > > >> > > More info inline, I think there is a couple of
>>> misconceptions on what I'm doing:
>>> > > > >> > >
>>> > > > >> > > 1) I already patch all my .obj files to contain .debug$H
>>> > > > >> > > entries so it is all ghashed already
>>> > > > >> > > 2) All the 35s is spent adding to the DenseMap
>>> > > > >> > >
>>> > > > >> > > Here is my current times (lld-link.exe compiled with -O2 so
>>> no lto/pgo), lld generates a 141 MB binary and 1.2GB pdb file:
>>> > > > >> > >
>>> > > > >> > > Input File Reading: 1724 ms ( 2.1%)
>>> > > > >> > > Code Layout: 482 ms ( 0.6%)
>>> > > > >> > > PDB Emission (Cumulative): 79261 ms ( 96.8%)
>>> > > > >> > > Add Objects: 68650 ms ( 83.8%)
>>> > > > >> > > Type Merging: 57534 ms ( 70.2%)
>>> > > > >> > > Symbol Merging: 10822 ms ( 13.2%)
>>> > > > >> > > TPI Stream Layout: 1501 ms ( 1.8%)
>>> > > > >> > > Globals Stream Layout: 770 ms ( 0.9%)
>>> > > > >> > > Commit to Disk: 7007 ms ( 8.6%)
>>> > > > >> > > Commit Output File: 19 ms ( 0.0%)
>>> > > > >> > > -------------------------------------------------
>>> > > > >> > > Total Link Time: 81900 ms (100.0%)
>>> > > > >> > >
>>> > > > >> > > Our target is for < 20 seconds linking, anything bellow 40
>>> seconds would be ok. Ideal times would be around 8s (in which it will
>>> mostly beat link.exe incremental linking).
>>> > > > >> > >
>>> > > > >> > > My tip for profiling is using superluminal
>>> > > > >> > > (https://www.superluminal.eu/) its the easiest way to see
>>> everything your code is doing.
>>> > > > >> > >
>>> > > > >> > > On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 5:18 PM Alexandre Ganea <
>>> alexandre.ganea at ubisoft.com> wrote:
>>> > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > Leonardo, to answer to your questions, yes to all of them
>>> J
>>> > > > >> > > > You can take a
>>> > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > look at this prototype/proposal:
>>> > > > >> > > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D55585
>>> > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > Overall, computing ghashes in parallel at link-time and
>>> > > > >> > > > merging Types with them
>>> > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > is less costly that the current approach to merging. The
>>> > > > >> > > > 35sec you’re seeing
>>> > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > for merging should go down to about 15sec.
>>> > > > >> > >
>>> > > > >> > > I don't do much computing of ghashes as we already
>>> preprocess all .obj files from msvc to add a .debug$H to them. The whole 35
>>> seconds is spent in just densehash findbucket function. The rest of the
>>> time is mostly pagefaults (I guess to load in obj data and to grow the
>>> final pdb?).
>>> > > > >> > >
>>> > > > >> > > > The patch doesn’t parallelize
>>> > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > (yet) the Type merging itself, but we have an alternate
>>> > > > >> > > > multithread-suitable
>>> > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > implementation of DenseHash which already supports
>>> lockless,
>>> > > > >> > > > wait-free,
>>> > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > insert/fetch/resize.
>>> > > > >> > >
>>> > > > >> > > Where is this lockless densehash? This is the part were I
>>> would love to help, but if there is a densehash it is probably just
>>> creating the threads and letting them merge the results. I'm a bit afraid
>>> of reproduceability of builds, but as we already don't have that with
>>> link.exe we are not really loosing anything.
>>> > > > >> > >
>>> > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > The prototype allows for testing different hashing
>>> > > > >> > > > algorithms, and indeed
>>> > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > xxHash seems to be the best general-purpose choice. I’ve
>>> also
>>> > > > >> > > > added support
>>> > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > for more specialized hardware-based hashes, like Casey
>>> > > > >> > > > Muratori’s Meow Hash
>>> > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > (uses hardware AES SSE 4.2 instructions), which brings
>>> the figures down a bit.
>>> > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > >> > >
>>> > > > >> > > I remembered Meow hashes needing at least k bytes of data,
>>> but looking at their website right now there is no mention of it. Hashing
>>> performance isn't much of an impact as we do it per .obj file distributed
>>> through our company so the time to calculate those are completely
>>> distributed.
>>> > > > >> > >
>>> > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > Future changes could write back the computed ghash stream
>>> > > > >> > > > back to OBJs if
>>> > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > /INCREMENTAL is specified (just an idea). Incrementally
>>> > > > >> > > > linking will be faster
>>> > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > that way when working with MSVC OBJs.
>>> > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > >> > >
>>> > > > >> > > I already have a patch for llvm-objcopy that adds a
>>> > > > >> > > -add-ghashes option that does this, I will be cleaning it up
>>> > > > >> > > this week and sending a PR for it
>>> > > > >> > >
>>> > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > As for creating PDBs for independent projects, that would
>>> help most likely.
>>> > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > However the ghash stream would need to be stored in the
>>> PDB
>>> > > > >> > > > in that case
>>> > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > (currently, ghashes are dropped after merging). That could
>>> > > > >> > > > help when using
>>> > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > rarely compiled projects, used along with network caches.
>>> > > > >> > >
>>> > > > >> > > I meant actually a .lib, with all the obj files inside plus
>>> a merged .debug$H entry. No pdb generation or changes necessary, we just
>>> run the same code that merges types in lld and do that a the librarian
>>> level.
>>> > > > >> > >
>>> > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > I will start sending smaller patches to converge towards
>>> the
>>> > > > >> > > > functionally of
>>> > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > the prototype above.
>>> > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > Best,
>>> > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > Alex.
>>> > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > From: Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com>
>>> > > > >> > > > Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2019 1:20 AM
>>> > > > >> > > > To: Leonardo Santagada <santagada at gmail.com>
>>> > > > >> > > > Cc: Alexandre Ganea <alexandre.ganea at ubisoft.com>; Reid
>>> > > > >> > > > Kleckner <rnk at google.com>; llvm-dev <
>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>>> > > > >> > > > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Making LLD PDB generation faster
>>> > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > +Reid and Alexandre, who have been doing work in this area
>>> > > > >> > > > +recently
>>> > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 4:07 AM Leonardo Santagada via
>>> llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>> > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > Hi,
>>> > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > Is anyone working on making the PDB generation on LLD
>>> faster?
>>> > > > >> > > > Looking of a trace for linking one of our binaries (it
>>> takes
>>> > > > >> > > > 1min6s-1min20s) I see two things:
>>> > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > 1) LookupBucketFor(Val, ConstFoundBucket); takes 35s so
>>> > > > >> > > > almost half of the time of linking, mostly finding
>>> duplicates
>>> > > > >> > > > 2) There is no parallelization inside of addObjectsToPDB
>>> > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > Is anyone working on those? Also has anyone thought about
>>> > > > >> > > > merging .obj files to deduplicate type infomation so we
>>> can
>>> > > > >> > > > do the linking on projects to generate something like a
>>> lib
>>> > > > >> > > > file, but deduplicated debug information (as far as I know
>>> > > > >> > > > actual .lib just put all pdbs or
>>> > > > >> > > > /Z7 debug info inside a file without dedup).
>>> > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > Just looking at the code it seems it is much more mature
>>> and
>>> > > > >> > > > also the choice of SHA1_8 seems interesting (still don't
>>> know
>>> > > > >> > > > why not use xxHash64).
>>> > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > ps: My code to add ghashes to msvc compiled .obj files is
>>> > > > >> > > > almost ready to be pushed as an option for llvm-objcopy.
>>> > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > --
>>> > > > >> > > >
>>> > > > >> > > > Leonardo Santagada
>>> > > > >> > > > _______________________________________________
>>> > > > >> > > > LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> > > > >> > > > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>> > > > >> > > > https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>> > > > >> > >
>>> > > > >> > >
>>> > > > >> > >
>>> > > > >> > > --
>>> > > > >> > >
>>> > > > >> > > Leonardo Santagada
>>> > > > >> >
>>> > > > >> >
>>> > > > >> >
>>> > > > >> > --
>>> > > > >> >
>>> > > > >> > Leonardo Santagada
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >> --
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >> Leonardo Santagada
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > --
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Leonardo Santagada
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > --
>>> > >
>>> > > Leonardo Santagada
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> >
>>> > Leonardo Santagada
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Leonardo Santagada
>>>
>> --
>
> Leonardo Santagada
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20190228/8c5506ea/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the llvm-dev
mailing list