gamesh411 added a comment. In D82561#2116091 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D82561#2116091>, @balazske wrote:
> In D82561#2115578 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D82561#2115578>, @xazax.hun wrote: > > > The analyzer inlines small functions within a TU regardless of the > > thresholds. I think it would be sensible to do the same across TUs in the > > case we don't do this already. > > > That means perform a get CTU definition if the TU to be imported (where the > function comes from) is small? Otherwise it does not matter how small the > function is, it can result in importing of large amount of code. Determining > parameters (like "smallness") of the TU is probably not simple. Measuring the smallness of a function is currently not trivial if the function is in another TU. But theoretically, the creation process of the CTU index has access to the number of declarations in a function, which could be used as a metric for complexity. Another concern is memory usage. Currently I am working on a solution to approximate the memory usage of declarations by measuring the total memory usage, and the number of declarations inside a TU. Then I can come up with average values for memory used per declaration for projects I test. I could measure multiple projects per language and come up with some statistics that way, but I'm sure that I am not alone with the feeling that there should be a better metric for memory usage other than this roundabout method. All would be well if there were a way to get `sizeof(astunit)`, but I am not aware of any. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D82561/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D82561 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
