You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Earlier in LLD's evolution, I tried to create the illusion that
subsections were indistinguishable from "top-level" sections. Thus, even
though the subsections shared many common field values, I hid those
common values away in a private Shared struct (see D105305). More
recently, however, @gkm added a public `Section` struct in D113241 that
served as an explicit way to store values that are common to an entire
set of subsections (aka InputSections). Now that we have another "common
value" struct, `Shared` has been rendered redundant. All its fields can
be moved into `Section` instead, and the pointer to `Shared` can be replaced
with a pointer to `Section`.
This `Section` pointer also has the advantage of letting us inspect other
subsections easily, simplifying the implementation of {D118798}.
P.S. I do think that having both `Section` and `InputSection` makes for
a slightly confusing naming scheme. I considered renaming `InputSection`
to `Subsection`, but that would break the symmetry with `OutputSection`.
It would also make us deviate from LLD-ELF's naming scheme.
This change is perf-neutral on my 3.2 GHz 16-Core Intel Xeon W machine:
base diff difference (95% CI)
sys_time 1.258 ± 0.031 1.248 ± 0.023 [ -1.6% .. +0.1%]
user_time 3.659 ± 0.047 3.658 ± 0.041 [ -0.5% .. +0.4%]
wall_time 4.640 ± 0.085 4.625 ± 0.063 [ -1.0% .. +0.3%]
samples 49 61
There's also no stat sig change in RSS (as measured by `time -l`):
base diff difference (95% CI)
time 998038627.097 ± 13567305.958 1003327715.556 ± 15210451.236 [ -0.2% .. +1.2%]
samples 31 36
Reviewed By: #lld-macho, oontvoo
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D118797
0 commit comments