I mean I'm nowhere near the purse strings but this has literally been an issue off-and-on since I .. uh .. left the project. We were having an argument over it that very week. It means prioritizing cycle time in a way that seems to resist all rational planning. I don't get it.
I’m sure we have plenty of peephole optimizations we can do. My point is that fixing that is not going to move the needle much on compile time. It’s whack-a-mole.
-
-
As we all know, LLVM could do a lot better with certain optimizations, but nobody thinks a 2x across-the-board runtime performance (or compile time) increase is likely with LLVM improvements. The point of diminishing returns was long past. MIR is fast approaching this point too.
-
Maybe. Maybe not. Getting a 5% benchmark improvement by just tweaking a bunch of PartialEq::eq functions makes me think MIR peephole optimisations could change a lot.
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.