http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15295
--- Comment #5 from Jim Tison <jtison at us dot ibm.com> 2013-03-26 17:35:53 UTC --- Hi Nick, Figuring there was something different about SLES 11 on the s390x architecture (glibc-2.11), I went and tried this experiment with on my Fedora Core 9 x86_64 (yeah, okay, a little dated, running glibc-2.8, but if it works, why mess with it?). I still get 46 million some-odd lseek syscalls over on s390x. Anyway, I see the same lseek behavior with oggenc.s I saw on s390x, it just got done faster (Intel Core Quad @ 2.3 GHz): strace -c as -o oggenc.o -alshd=oggenc.lst oggenc.s % time seconds usecs/call calls errors syscall ------ ----------- ----------- --------- --------- ---------------- 84.33 0.901576 0 44516828 lseek 13.94 0.149053 0 3243096 read 0.61 0.006543 1 5594 write 0.60 0.006428 0 17827 24 open 0.18 0.001974 0 17799 munmap 0.11 0.001133 0 17803 close 0.09 0.001000 1000 1 unlink 0.08 0.000883 0 17823 mmap 0.05 0.000485 0 17803 fstat 0.01 0.000092 0 1409 brk 0.00 0.000000 0 8 6 stat 0.00 0.000000 0 1 lstat 0.00 0.000000 0 6 mprotect 0.00 0.000000 0 1 1 access 0.00 0.000000 0 1 execve 0.00 0.000000 0 2 fcntl 0.00 0.000000 0 1 getrusage 0.00 0.000000 0 1 arch_prctl ------ ----------- ----------- --------- --------- ---------------- 100.00 1.069167 47856004 31 total I can't explain why the vast difference between your results and mine should exist, but I think my user will accept completion in 54s as opposed to 4m30s on the s390x. Unless you hear from me within a couple of days (nobody's here today to tell me if this is acceptable), you can call this closed. The lawyers aren't going to let me send out the real code; but oggenc.c(s) illustrates the problem on my side. It's fairly obvious to me you've done the best you can, and I'll settle for under a minute real time. Code shouldn't be written like that anyway. We do use gcc+binutils to compile our DSOs for our own OS/arch (s390x-ibm-tpf) with our own custom non-dbx-style debugger. What's really ironic is that the subject of this complaint is native Linux code and would have to be debugged with gdb: I don't see what good a listing does; I think my user is just stuck on a nasty habit. But the rules I have to work with are the rules, and IMO you've gone far enough. I appreciate the quick responses and the job you've done. Thanks very much! -- Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
