This is the mail archive of the binutils@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the binutils project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: parallelized 'ld'?

From: Alan Modra <amodra at bigpond dot net dot au>
To: dj at redhat dot com, cynbe at muq dot org, binutils at sources dot redhat dot com,asmundak at cisco dot com
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 15:24:47 +0930
Subject: Re: parallelized 'ld'?
References: <200307150234.h6F2YsNW028337@tully.CS.Berkeley.EDU><87d6f63jes.fsf@muq.org> <200308261804.h7QI4VW26104@greed.delorie.com><20030827030820.GF1320@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au><m3vfsj7jnu.fsf@gossamer.airs.com>

On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 10:29:25PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> But we don't have one hash table per object file.  We have one hash
> table for the entire link.  A single overly large hash table, within
> reason, is harmless.

Duh.  I spoke without thinking.  What I had in the back of my mind was
that there is a case where we can use a smaller hash table if we have
expandable tables.  Not the symbol table, but the section hash table,
which is per input bfd.

-- 
Alan Modra
IBM OzLabs - Linux Technology Centre

References:
- Re: parallelized 'ld'?
  - From: Cynbe ru Taren
- Re: parallelized 'ld'?
  - From: DJ Delorie
- Re: parallelized 'ld'?
  - From: Alan Modra
- Re: parallelized 'ld'?
  - From: Ian Lance Taylor

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]