Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [cdt-dev] Help with Indexer Bug

On 13-10-02 12:01 PM, Joseph Henry wrote:
> What was the fairly larger project that you tested?
> I ran a test of my own. The first one is I added a ctx.trackSignificantMacros(); statement in the detectIncludeGuard function in CPreprocessor even if an include guard was found. This fixes all of my issues. This is the output of the log:
> !MESSAGE Indexed 'Index1' (10 sources, 242 headers) in 3.45 sec: 31,198 declarations; 65,703 references; 0 unresolved inclusions; 0 syntax errors; 0 unresolved names (0.00%)
> Now this is how the output without my change:
> !MESSAGE Indexed 'Index1' (10 sources, 221 headers) in 3.18 sec: 26,224 declarations; 56,348 references; 0 unresolved inclusions; 101 syntax errors; 323 unresolved names (0.39%)
> I do not see a significant performance increase, yet I do see that my project resolves perfectly.

The sample projects are just from internal development.  I'm not at all familiar with the structure of the projects, so
I can't make any guesses at why one was so much worse.  However, it also happened to be the largest of my three samples.

I don't have the full results from the test anymore, but here is the summary of the indexer (ran just now) from the
project that was 7x slower:

C/C++ Indexer: Project 'seven_times_slower' (504 sources, 5844 headers)
    Options: indexer='PDOMFastIndexer', parseAllFiles=true, unusedHeaders=useCPP, skipReferences=false,
skipImplicitReferences=false, skipTypeReferences=false, skipMacroReferences=false.
    Database: 119873536 bytes
    Timings: 1342211 total, 319891 parser, 9345 resolution, 51686 index update.
    Errors: 0 internal, 0 include, 0 scanner, 0 syntax errors.
    Names: 399371 declarations, 1735121 references, 350(0.02%) unresolved.
    Cache[64MB]: 4872643790 hits, 7259(0.00%) misses.
Indexer: completed PDOMRebuildTask[1342246ms]

I wouldn't call this project large, but it was bigger the other toy projects that I was using for testing.

Also, I would caution against the change you described.  I was not able to make that variation work without introducing
new problems in other projects.

Finally, a technique that I found useful was to put print statements in the constructors for PDOMFile, PDOMMacro, and
PDOMInclude.  I used the record id as a unique identifier.  In PDOMInclude I printed both the containing and the target
files.  Printing the lists of significant and internallyModified macros generated ALOT of output, so I used filtering
and the focused on only one or two at a time.

While looking for these results I found notes on a related problem that I had meant to raise as a bug.  I've done that
now (418533).  From what I remember, the description of that bug was one of the things that wound up introducing new
bugs when I made the change you described.


Back to the top