When the number of shared libs is massive, there could be hundreds of
thousands of short lived progress events sent to the IDE, which makes it
irresponsive while it's processing all this data. As these small jobs
take less than a second to process, the user doesn't even see them,
because the IDE only display the progress of long operations. So it's
better not to send these events.
I'm fixing that by sending only the events that are taking longer than 5
seconds to process.
In a specific run, I got the number of events from ~500k to 100, because
there was only 1 big lib to parse.
I've tried this on several small and massive targets, and it seems to
work fine.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D101128
When the number of shared libs is massive, there could be hundreds of
thousands of short lived progress events sent to the IDE, which makes it
irresponsive while it's processing all this data. As these small jobs
take less than a second to process, the user doesn't even see them,
because the IDE only display the progress of long operations. So it's
better not to send these events.
I'm fixing that by sending only the events that are taking longer than 5
seconds to process.
In a specific run, I got the number of events from ~500k to 100, because
there was only 1 big lib to parse.
I've tried this on several small and massive targets, and it seems to
work fine.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D101128
Progress events internally have a completed count and a total count, which can mean that for a job with 20000 total counts, then there will be 20000 events fired. Sending all these events to the IDE can break it. For example, debugging a huge binary resulted in around 50 million messages, which rendered the IDE useless, as it was spending all of its resources simply parsing messages and updating the UI.
A way to fix this is to send unique percentage updates, which are at most 100 per job, which is not much. I was able to debug that big target and confirm that only unique percentage notifications are sent. I can't write a test for this because the current test is flaky. I'll figure out later how to make the test reliable, but fixing this will unblock us from deploy a new version of lldb-vscode.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D100443
Walter Erquinigo