-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13.6k
Improve debug names index fetching global variables performance #70231
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
jeffreytan81
merged 2 commits into
llvm:main
from
jeffreytan81:fix_debug_names_scopes_perf
Oct 25, 2023
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -129,8 +129,19 @@ void DebugNamesDWARFIndex::GetGlobalVariables( | |
DWARFUnit &cu, llvm::function_ref<bool(DWARFDIE die)> callback) { | ||
uint64_t cu_offset = cu.GetOffset(); | ||
bool found_entry_for_cu = false; | ||
for (const DebugNames::NameIndex &ni: *m_debug_names_up) { | ||
for (DebugNames::NameTableEntry nte: ni) { | ||
for (const DebugNames::NameIndex &ni : *m_debug_names_up) { | ||
// Check if this name index contains an entry for the given CU. | ||
bool cu_matches = false; | ||
for (uint32_t i = 0; i < ni.getCUCount(); ++i) { | ||
if (ni.getCUOffset(i) == cu_offset) { | ||
cu_matches = true; | ||
break; | ||
} | ||
} | ||
if (!cu_matches) | ||
continue; | ||
Comment on lines
+134
to
+142
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. It'd be great if we could use some kind of |
||
|
||
for (DebugNames::NameTableEntry nte : ni) { | ||
uint64_t entry_offset = nte.getEntryOffset(); | ||
llvm::Expected<DebugNames::Entry> entry_or = ni.getEntry(&entry_offset); | ||
for (; entry_or; entry_or = ni.getEntry(&entry_offset)) { | ||
|
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If NameIndex exposed the CUOffsets as a range (which seems pretty easy/reasonable for it to do - ah, because it requires potentially applying relocations it'd probably require a custom iterator - maybe a mapped iterator would be adequate & easy to do) then this could be written as:
I /think/
CUOffsets()
would look something roughly like this:There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Oh, also, if you kept the result (more like a
llvm::find_if
as @bulbazord was suggesting, rather than myllvm::none_of
here) of this search, you could save a small amount of time (no need to indirect through the index and reapply relocations to get the CU offset) by usinggetCUInedx()
and comparing that to the index you would've found in this search - down on line 139/150