[gentoo-dev] glibc & binutils -aware hackers wanted for questions ;)

[gentoo-dev] glibc & binutils -aware hackers wanted for questions ;)

[Spider (D.m.D. Lj.)]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 622 bytes --]

Hello, 
  I've been looking some at Michael Meeks -Bdirect patches, and the
possible performance boost they could give.

The good parts here is that it seems to be far less intrusive for the
running system than prelink is, on the other hand, it does require a
more intrusive surgery into the core systems.

So, now I'm just asking for comments and/or discussion here..  would it
be worth the time spent on this? 
http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2005-10/msg00436.html



//Spider
  
-- 
begin  .signature
Tortured users / Laughing in pain
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc & binutils -aware hackers wanted for questions ;)

[Bret Towe]

On 11/28/05, Spider (D.m.D. Lj.) <spider@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Hello,
>   I've been looking some at Michael Meeks -Bdirect patches, and the
> possible performance boost they could give.
>
> The good parts here is that it seems to be far less intrusive for the
> running system than prelink is, on the other hand, it does require a
> more intrusive surgery into the core systems.
>
> So, now I'm just asking for comments and/or discussion here..  would it
> be worth the time spent on this?
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2005-10/msg00436.html

looks interesting personally id like to see how it acts on kde also
and some small c++ apps to see if it hurts them any
a single benchmark for a change that would affect so much seems
a bit silly to me

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc & binutils -aware hackers wanted for questions ;)

[Spider (D.m.D. Lj.)]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 906 bytes --]

On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 17:56 -0800, Bret Towe wrote:

> >
> > So, now I'm just asking for comments and/or discussion here..  would it
> > be worth the time spent on this?
> > http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2005-10/msg00436.html
> 
> looks interesting personally id like to see how it acts on kde also
> and some small c++ apps to see if it hurts them any
> a single benchmark for a change that would affect so much seems
> a bit silly to me

Yeah, but before I start to spend too much time hacking on this, I'd
want to have a suggested metric and performance test setup here. If
anyone has ideas for a decent test, I'd be happy.

As for KDE, I think modern Gnome would benefit as well, since it has
been heavily refactioned into libraries these days. 

//Spider
-- 
begin  .signature
Tortured users / Laughing in pain
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc & binutils -aware hackers wanted for questions ;)

[Bret Towe]

On 11/28/05, Spider (D.m.D. Lj.) <spider@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 17:56 -0800, Bret Towe wrote:
>
> > >
> > > So, now I'm just asking for comments and/or discussion here..  would it
> > > be worth the time spent on this?
> > > http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2005-10/msg00436.html
> >
> > looks interesting personally id like to see how it acts on kde also
> > and some small c++ apps to see if it hurts them any
> > a single benchmark for a change that would affect so much seems
> > a bit silly to me
>
> Yeah, but before I start to spend too much time hacking on this, I'd
> want to have a suggested metric and performance test setup here. If
> anyone has ideas for a decent test, I'd be happy.
>
> As for KDE, I think modern Gnome would benefit as well, since it has
> been heavily refactioned into libraries these days.

http://www.gnome.org/~lcolitti/gnome-startup/analysis/
you might find this interesting then was posted to lkml a day or 2 ago

one think i forgot to comment on is id like to see what kind of speed
prelink provides also maybe with and without this patch

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] glibc & binutils -aware hackers wanted for questions ;)

[Spider (D.m.D. Lj.)]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 770 bytes --]

On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 02:29 +0100, Spider (D.m.D. Lj.) wrote:
> Hello, 
>   I've been looking some at Michael Meeks -Bdirect patches, and the
> possible performance boost they could give.
> 
> The good parts here is that it seems to be far less intrusive for the
> running system than prelink is, on the other hand, it does require a
> more intrusive surgery into the core systems.
> 
> So, now I'm just asking for comments and/or discussion here..  would it
> be worth the time spent on this? 
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2005-10/msg00436.html
> 

For the interested :

http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=114008



-- 
begin  .signature
Tortured users / Laughing in pain
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]