I'm actually running with this for a week or so as well, amd64 and i386, didn't notice breakage
* Stuart Henderson <s...@spacehopper.org> [2011-05-06 11:17]: > Just noticed I still have Ms for this. Has it been tested on enough > arch yet? So far I know it's been run on > > amd64 (sthen) > armish (sthen) > i386 (aja, sthen) > macppc (aja, sthen) > loongson (phessler) > > Any others? Considering how much it sucks if ld.so is broken, it would > be good to have reports from a few more arch, I would think hppa and > sparc64 as a minimum. > > > On 2011/04/28 08:45, Antoine Jacoutot wrote: > > On Sat, 23 Apr 2011, Dale Rahn wrote: > > > > > Here is a diff that was originally hatched at c2k10 and finally > > > implemented > > > at k2k11. This has been tested lightly so needs to be tested on all > > > systems > > > with big and small programs. > > > > > > On some machines this can shave 15% off of the startup time of large > > > applications with lots of dynamically loaded libraries. > > > > > > Please test and let me know if there are any problems found. > > > > > > Yes I am intentionally cross posting this to ports@ as large ports > > > are the most affected by this diff. > > > > > > Maybe this will finally get ajacoutot@ off my back ;) > > > > Heh ;-) > > > > Anyway, I've been running with several variations of that diff on > > some machines (i386 and macppc) for several weeks without seeing any > > regressions. > > And I can confirm large beasts do benefit from it. > > > > -- > > Antoine > -- Henning Brauer, h...@bsws.de, henn...@openbsd.org BS Web Services, http://bsws.de Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting
