Re: Debian shared libs use far more memory than required

2005-08-26 Thread Thiemo Seufer
Stephane Chauveau wrote: > Thiemo Seufer wrote: > > > >The whole thing sounds like the result of hiding _GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_ > >and _PROCEDURE_LINKAGE_TABLE_ in newer binutils. > > > > I assume that you mean that the problem the problem is solved by using > the latest binutils (and not that it w

Re: Debian shared libs use far more memory than required

2005-08-26 Thread Kurt Roeckx
On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 10:25:15AM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote: > > I checked the content of the .data section in libgtk and the > > unexpected data appears to be composed of all exported > > symbols aligned to a multiple of 16. Obviously a symbol > > table of some kind. > > The whole thing sound

Re: Re: Debian shared libs use far more memory than required

2005-08-26 Thread Stephane Chauveau
Thiemo Seufer wrote: The whole thing sounds like the result of hiding _GLOBAL_OFFSET_TABLE_ and _PROCEDURE_LINKAGE_TABLE_ in newer binutils. I assume that you mean that the problem the problem is solved by using the latest binutils (and not that it was introduceed by them). Is there an ea

Re: Debian shared libs use far more memory than required

2005-08-26 Thread Thiemo Seufer
Stephane Chauveau wrote: > Thiemo Seufer wrote: > > >Andreas Barth wrote: > >[snip] > > > > > >>>DEBIAN PACKAGE FROM REPOSITORY: > >>>11 .rodata 000840cb 0021a180 0021a180 ... > >>>21 .data 000233c0 003f1d60 003f1d60 ... > >>> > >>>MY OWN RECOMP

Re: Debian shared libs use far more memory than required

2005-08-25 Thread Stephane Chauveau
Thiemo Seufer wrote: Andreas Barth wrote: [snip] DEBIAN PACKAGE FROM REPOSITORY: 11 .rodata 000840cb 0021a180 0021a180 ... 21 .data 000233c0 003f1d60 003f1d60 ... MY OWN RECOMPILED DEBIAN PACKAGE: 11 .rodata 000a43ad 001f318

Re: Debian shared libs use far more memory than required

2005-08-25 Thread Kurt Roeckx
On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 12:21:07AM +0200, Stephane Chauveau wrote: > > I am not really surprised because I just compared the linker scripts > from 2.15 and 2.16. > They have a different section ordering and the official debian package > clearly follows the 2.16 ordering. Also, there was no diffe

Re: Debian shared libs use far more memory than required

2005-08-25 Thread Stephane Chauveau
Kurt Roeckx wrote: On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 07:47:17PM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote: The immediate suspect is binutils, particularily ld. It might be interesting to do test compiles with an older binutils version (2.15 vs. 2.16?) and see if the problem is reproducible. The package in que

Re: Debian shared libs use far more memory than required

2005-08-25 Thread Bastian Blank
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 08:07:42PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 07:47:17PM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote: > > The immediate suspect is binutils, particularily ld. It might be > > interesting to do test compiles with an older binutils version > > (2.15 vs. 2.16?) and see if the p

Re: Debian shared libs use far more memory than required

2005-08-25 Thread Kurt Roeckx
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 07:47:17PM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote: > The immediate suspect is binutils, particularily ld. It might be > interesting to do test compiles with an older binutils version > (2.15 vs. 2.16?) and see if the problem is reproducible. The package in question was already build us

Re: Debian shared libs use far more memory than required

2005-08-25 Thread Thiemo Seufer
Andreas Barth wrote: [snip] > > DEBIAN PACKAGE FROM REPOSITORY: > > 11 .rodata 000840cb 0021a180 0021a180 ... > > 21 .data 000233c0 003f1d60 003f1d60 ... > > > > MY OWN RECOMPILED DEBIAN PACKAGE: > > 11 .rodata 000a43ad 001f3180 0

Re: Debian shared libs use far more memory than required

2005-08-25 Thread Andreas Barth
Hi, [full cite left for d-ds usage] * Stephane Chauveau ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050825 01:16]: > I was profiling the memory usage of libgtk when discovered something > very strange. > > > As you may know, shared memory are usually mapped in 2 different memory > segments. > The first segment cont