On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 06:57 -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> Maitaining a C++ linker map isn't easy. I think gcc should help out
> here.
What do you suggest ? - something separate from the visibility markup ?
perhaps what I'm suggesting is some horribly mis-use of that. Clearly
adding a new visib
On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 10:59:01AM +0100, michael meeks wrote:
> Hi H.J.,
>
> > Why can't you you do it with ELF using a linker map? Libstdc++.so is
> > built with a linker map. Any C++ shared library should use one if the
> > startup time is a big concern. Of coursee, if gcc can generate a list
Hi H.J.,
On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 08:55 -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > -fvisibility is helpful - as the paper says, not as helpful as the old
> > -Bsymbolic (or link maps exposing only 3 or so functions) were. However
> > - -fvisibility can only help so much - if you have:
>
> Since you were comparin
On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 14:18 +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Monday 01 August 2005 11:44, michael meeks wrote:
> > However - the log(s) term is rather irrelevant to my argument :-)
>
> Not really. Maybe the oprofile results for the linker show that the
> behavior is worse, or maybe better
michael meeks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi there,
>
> I've been doing a little thinking about how to improve OO.o startup
> performance recently; and - well, relocation processing happens to be
> the single, biggest thing that most tools flag.
Have you tried eliminating all the
On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 10:38:46AM +0100, michael meeks wrote:
> Hi Giovanni,
>
> On Sat, 2005-07-30 at 15:36 +0200, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> > I'm slow, but I can't understand why a careful design of the interfaces of
> > the dynamic libraries
>
> Well - sure, depends how 'careful' you are ;
On Monday 01 August 2005 11:44, michael meeks wrote:
> However - the log(s) term is rather irrelevant to my argument :-)
Not really. Maybe the oprofile results for the linker show that the
behavior is worse, or maybe better - who knows :-)
Have you looked at any profiles btw? Just for the
Hi Dan,
On Sat, 2005-07-30 at 11:19 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> MM wrote in http://go-oo.org/~michael/OOoStartup.pdf:
> "... not one slot was overridden by an implementation
> method external to the implementing library."
This is really an issue rather orthogonal to that of 'final',
On Sat, 2005-07-30 at 18:25 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > > All input much appreciated; no doubt my terminology is irritatingly up
> > > the creek, hopefully the sentiment will win through.
> > >
> > > http://go-oo.org/~michael/OOoStartup.pdf
>
> One thing I don't understand is the formula w
Hi Giovanni,
On Sat, 2005-07-30 at 15:36 +0200, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> I'm slow, but I can't understand why a careful design of the interfaces of
> the dynamic libraries
Well - sure, depends how 'careful' you are ;-) clearly if no C++
classes with virtual methods form the interface of any
Giovanni Bajo writes:
> michael meeks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I've been doing a little thinking about how to improve OO.o startup
> > performance recently; and - well, relocation processing happens to be
> > the single, biggest thing that most tools flag.
> >
> > Anyhow - so I wrot
MM wrote in http://go-oo.org/~michael/OOoStartup.pdf:
"... not one slot was overridden by an implementation
method external to the implementing library."
Hmm. For some reason that reminds me of the 'final'
keyword which is periodically proposed
(e.g. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-02/msg01483.htm
michael meeks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've been doing a little thinking about how to improve OO.o startup
> performance recently; and - well, relocation processing happens to be
> the single, biggest thing that most tools flag.
>
> Anyhow - so I wrote up the problem, and a couple of potential
On 29 Jul 2005, Florian Weimer announced authoritatively:
> * michael meeks:
>
>> I've been doing a little thinking about how to improve OO.o startup
>> performance recently; and - well, relocation processing happens to be
>> the single, biggest thing that most tools flag.
>
> Have you tried
* michael meeks:
> I've been doing a little thinking about how to improve OO.o startup
> performance recently; and - well, relocation processing happens to be
> the single, biggest thing that most tools flag.
Have you tried prelinking?
15 matches
Mail list logo
