From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6FBF813832E for ; Fri, 19 Aug 2016 17:14:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 966EAE09AF; Fri, 19 Aug 2016 17:14:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qk0-f169.google.com (mail-qk0-f169.google.com [209.85.220.169]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4679FE083A for ; Fri, 19 Aug 2016 17:14:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qk0-f169.google.com with SMTP id t7so48325441qkh.1 for ; Fri, 19 Aug 2016 10:14:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pathscale-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=FJSh54e7CFK0zawYomHHOtICgPCLGfhLtZWWsfn4P7E=; b=DPYjK+TpyekEn/kCSogmz/f0f4BtWO4hQDSzTd8k5w4AsE3wt3/EycxHDzDCMvmtGd 7LGOSP0aZIy3cXFQMkSFgBmtIpd3Kl4FYIjMnsqE0fH4SVJzjn39jZLexhYLD81I4RTc SkzoyI6cEHs9tdLDoMylCQ+bxtLerTjbHgyqK8RfcVGsOC+oJC+0izo8ES1Z9GnYDBxY A+X2wsshF3tjlyWrD+luyiTSQrGYPnoXhch3g9j7j7hyqbnClfndpoA/tiBdCME4caCt nb7NcwYm+0WgZVQGu6tNFJ1XPjlsm/LLCSxOGrRBV6heMKsV36DSlk2t2XBXfBTpOFHE KaCA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=FJSh54e7CFK0zawYomHHOtICgPCLGfhLtZWWsfn4P7E=; b=docKlCTRzopHPJJqf/Y5NTQCAwnZuFXb8uupWEJovmofPg52WxfJygTwkQM+TqPlcs XYQehO1tkgvxxJ4IMjbT2y75oHT87+k4gEB9LBmOXF8SNRYKW2Cx4VX1jA08LVLTtZGI 8Fe3ji09NYewW06dbja6cGLypy41KR5U/Ppe4tJpeodsQxxznLMkPOgtcIMBlh3FrabD /sbr6K4up/WSuk/Ck5CZmJMN1FWtYHskLPozJ6mWdVD5O1az0IxN7xU+zOp8sLjfGyo/ TtU1DEC/ylmyFt4SXZPv2sP9KPD2IBpbvFddZNJZ7YxAydyVQ/6pN1yEEAH46+UYMcjm xX6Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwPt76xMVGC1bCuHERlbr52q3A1QnuKmxo/NNhSaVqP+HHyKYNQKVAZSJRQ3bfACmBOy0XWCcPJVj/3lxA== X-Received: by 10.55.24.149 with SMTP id 21mr10200289qky.232.1471626855141; Fri, 19 Aug 2016 10:14:15 -0700 (PDT) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.140.22.6 with HTTP; Fri, 19 Aug 2016 10:13:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: [115.87.2.110] In-Reply-To: References: <20160816182204.61c27681.mgorny@gentoo.org> <20160819020737.5419083.98443.119986@pathscale.com> From: =?UTF-8?B?QyBCZXJnc3Ryw7Zt?= Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2016 01:13:54 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: LLVM To: "Anthony G. Basile" Cc: llvm@gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: fdf1361d-eb07-4841-8034-40a72f76713b X-Archives-Hash: 9553bb835287124fc8fbb96b1db270fd I finally got it to build and here's the size numbers 952K ./lib/libc++abi.a 616K ./lib/libc++abi.so.1.0 If the above isn't enough motivation and you really want benchmarks which prove it's a pig... I'll try to figure something else Not exactly a 1:1 comparison because I think other things are mixed in, but= ... 352K /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.9/libsupc++.a 356K /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/5/libsupc++.a In the land of HPC we frequently statically link stuff... not that 864KB is big by any sort of modern definition, but it does raise questions.. On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 12:54 AM, Lei Zhang wrot= e: > 2016-08-19 11:11 GMT+08:00 C Bergstr=C3=B6m : >> I think you're getting a bit confused >> >> libsupc++ is the default now, from GNU >> >> libcxxabi is the bloated runtime from Apple >> >> libcxxrt is the faster c++ runtime, PathScale+David Chisnall, which >> PathScale and FreeBSD use by default. We don't need a version number >> because it's pretty much rock solid stable for a while. >> I'd encourage you to consider libcxxrt for at least the code size and >> performance reasons. Build it and you'll see. Locally my unoptimized >> libcxxrt.so is like 88K. How much is your libcxxabi (static and >> shared) >> >> 88K /opt/enzo-2016-06-26/lib/6.0.983/x8664/64/libcxxrt.so >> 140K /opt/enzo-2016-06-26/lib/6.0.983/x8664/64/libcxxrt.a >> // This seems larger than I remember and I need to check why. >> >> https://github.com/pathscale/libcxxrt > > Currently libcxxrt is the default ABI lib for libc++ in Gentoo. I mean > to replace it with libc++abi in that context. > > I'm interested in benchmarking to reveal the claimed difference in > performance. Perhaps I can build the same program against libcxxrt and > libc++abi respectively and see how it behaves. Do you have some hints > on what kind of programs I should test? > > > Thanks, > Lei >