-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
feat: implement merge sort for jCC lists to ensure chronological dump… #3
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: cod-1573-v431-seems-to-cause-hangs
Are you sure you want to change the base?
feat: implement merge sort for jCC lists to ensure chronological dump… #3
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Pull Request Overview
This PR adds chronological ordering to jump call cost center (jCC) dump output by tracking creation sequence numbers. The change ensures jCC entries are dumped in the order they were created rather than in an arbitrary order determined by the linked list structure.
- Added a global counter to track jCC creation sequence
- Implemented merge sort algorithm for jCC linked lists
- Applied sorting to jCC lists before dumping to ensure chronological order
Reviewed Changes
Copilot reviewed 3 out of 3 changed files in this pull request and generated 4 comments.
| File | Description |
|---|---|
| callgrind/jumps.c | Added global jcc_creation_counter and initialization of creation_seq field during jCC creation |
| callgrind/global.h | Added creation_seq field to jCC structure for tracking creation order |
| callgrind/dump.c | Implemented merge sort for jCC lists and applied sorting before dumping jCC data |
💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.
26f9997 to
f03d9fa
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
olgtm, but let's wait for #4 before merging this IMO, it's both more prio and includes performance measurement so we'll be able to measure the impact of this
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
lgtm overall but can you rebase this on the bench PR? we need to make sure this won't affect performance in most cases
f03d9fa to
0a94bfb
Compare
CodSpeed Performance ReportMerging #3 will degrade performances by 49.54%Comparing Summary
Benchmarks breakdown
|
cf89bf1 to
c3a2004
Compare
c965f28 to
870f6a9
Compare
a694a30 to
ba6b305
Compare
870f6a9 to
3f505e7
Compare
0157df9 to
742df7b
Compare
3f505e7 to
87d1cb3
Compare
94c9f32 to
be89096
Compare
87d1cb3 to
52c8236
Compare
be89096 to
12ced54
Compare
52c8236 to
6a8fb36
Compare
12ced54 to
7f7efb4
Compare
6a8fb36 to
820730a
Compare
7fe1d38 to
76d83b9
Compare
6f97311 to
d0504d7
Compare
820730a to
b6c4eba
Compare
d0504d7 to
e96b4c1
Compare
b6c4eba to
dd595b4
Compare
e96b4c1 to
77811f8
Compare
dd595b4 to
e8fd6f3
Compare
… order