This just removes the code that gates the logic. The main issue here is
perf impact: without {D122258}, LLD takes a significant perf hit because
it now has to do a lot more work in the input parsing phase. But with
that change to eliminate unnecessary EH frames from input object files,
the perf overhead here is minimal. Concretely, here are the numbers for
some builds as measured on my 16-core Mac Pro:
**chromium_framework**
This is without the use of `-femit-dwarf-unwind=no-compact-unwind`:
base diff difference (95% CI)
sys_time 1.826 ± 0.019 1.962 ± 0.034 [ +6.5% .. +8.4%]
user_time 9.306 ± 0.054 9.926 ± 0.082 [ +6.2% .. +7.1%]
wall_time 8.225 ± 0.068 8.947 ± 0.128 [ +8.0% .. +9.6%]
samples 15 22
With that flag enabled, the regression mostly disappears, as hoped:
base diff difference (95% CI)
sys_time 1.839 ± 0.062 1.866 ± 0.068 [ -0.9% .. +3.8%]
user_time 9.452 ± 0.068 9.490 ± 0.067 [ -0.1% .. +0.9%]
wall_time 8.383 ± 0.127 8.452 ± 0.114 [ -0.1% .. +1.8%]
samples 17 21
**Unnamed internal app**
Without `-femit-dwarf-unwind`, this is the perf hit:
base diff difference (95% CI)
sys_time 1.372 ± 0.029 1.317 ± 0.024 [ -4.6% .. -3.5%]
user_time 2.835 ± 0.028 2.980 ± 0.027 [ +4.8% .. +5.4%]
wall_time 3.205 ± 0.079 3.383 ± 0.066 [ +4.9% .. +6.2%]
samples 102 83
With `-femit-dwarf-unwind`, the perf hit almost disappears:
base diff difference (95% CI)
sys_time 1.274 ± 0.026 1.270 ± 0.025 [ -0.9% .. +0.3%]
user_time 2.812 ± 0.023 2.822 ± 0.035 [ +0.1% .. +0.7%]
wall_time 3.166 ± 0.047 3.174 ± 0.059 [ -0.2% .. +0.7%]
samples 95 97
Just for fun, I measured the impact of `-femit-dwarf-unwind` on ld64
(`base` has the extra DWARF unwind info in the input object files,
`diff` doesn't):
base diff difference (95% CI)
sys_time 1.128 ± 0.010 1.124 ± 0.023 [ -1.3% .. +0.6%]
user_time 7.176 ± 0.030 7.106 ± 0.094 [ -1.5% .. -0.4%]
wall_time 7.874 ± 0.041 7.795 ± 0.121 [ -1.7% .. -0.3%]
samples 16 25
And for LLD:
base diff difference (95% CI)
sys_time 1.315 ± 0.019 1.280 ± 0.019 [ -3.2% .. -2.0%]
user_time 2.980 ± 0.022 2.822 ± 0.016 [ -5.5% .. -5.0%]
wall_time 3.369 ± 0.038 3.175 ± 0.033 [ -6.2% .. -5.3%]
samples 47 47
So parsing the extra EH frames is a lot more expensive for us than for
ld64. But given that we are quite a lot faster than ld64 to begin with,
I guess this isn't entirely unexpected...
Reviewed By: #lld-macho, oontvoo
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D129540
403d61aedd