sm-sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Discussion of Sorcery related topics
List archive
- From: Wolfgang Scheicher <worf AT sbox.tu-graz.ac.at>
- To: Ondra Tomecka <otom7630 AT lucy.troja.mff.cuni.cz>, sm-sorcery AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Cc:
- Subject: Re: [SM-Sorcery] prelink
- Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 14:26:48 +0200
On Thursday 09 October 2003 11:48, Hamish Greig wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 18:41, Ondra Tomecka wrote:
>> So my question is: is there any intention for using prelink, and if so
>> how is it going?
About 14 Months ago I did add prelink to SourceMage, but with new binutils
released a while later that version of prelink was both incompatible and
obsolete, because of similar performance.
We added the optional global -z combreloc flag that time to use the
new binutils feature (which is now on by default in new binutils iirc)
I did read a bit about the new prelink stuff, but have not tried it.
Perhaps with your help we can add it. I'd like to help and test, you made me
curious now! :-)
> I think I would want more than a 0.08 second improvement on a pIII 733 with
> 128 MB ram for it to be worth it. The Kmail results seem a little extreme
> and need verification
When i remember back the results from 1 year ago, this sounds a bit much, but
still plausible - kde apps load a lot of libs and benefit greatly from things
like prelink.
However - if the difference is still as big, now that we use binutils with
similar features - is questionable. That needs testing.
Back last year i read something like using (last years version of) prelink
gives you only little speed improve over using -z combreloc, but while
(last years version of) prelink only works for a handfull of apps,
binutils -z combreloc works for all apps.
Worf
-
[SM-Sorcery] prelink,
Ondra Tomecka, 10/09/2003
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery] prelink,
Hamish Greig, 10/09/2003
- Re: [SM-Sorcery] prelink, Wolfgang Scheicher, 10/09/2003
-
Re: [SM-Sorcery] prelink,
Hamish Greig, 10/09/2003
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.