This is the mail archive of the crossgcc@sourceware.org mailing list for the crossgcc project.
See the CrossGCC FAQ for lots more information.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
Titus, Bill, All, On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 8:39 AM, Titus von Boxberg <titus@v9g.de> wrote: > Am 24.12.2010 um 15:53 schrieb Bill Pringlemeir: > >> On 22 Dec 2010, titus@v9g.de wrote: >>> Am 22.12.2010 um 21:09 schrieb Bryan Hundven: >> >>>>> As a test apart from my company's own software, I used the http >>>>> server example of asio today, and got a factor of 2 between ARM >>>>> and other archs (though linking time is quite short in total: >>>>> 0.21s user for PPC/X86 and 0.45 s user for ARM on a 2GHz Core 2 >>>>> Duo Mac using binutils-2.20). >> >>>> So your building apache2? lighttpd? custom httpd server? ÂJust >>>> curious so I can repo the problem, and eventually start to provide >>>> help. >> >>> Sorry, that was a bit short. ÂI meant boost's asio lib >>> (www.boost.org). Included are small samples e.g. for a http >>> server. That was something I had lying around for testing. ÂBut >>> maybe also other applications do the trick. >> >> It sounds like titus's primary apps are C++, perhaps with heavy >> template usage. > Yes, that's correct. > >> The 'gold' linker has far higher performance for C++ >> applications with large name mangling, etc. >> >> Ian Lance Taylor, golds creator, measures it as 5x faster. ÂFor >> pathological cases, it may be even more. > That's also what I've observed. > >> >> Bryan and other ARM users may not notice the link times unless they >> are linking C++ templates. ÂIf 'gold' is not building for the ARM, >> this might explain everything as 'ld' can be 'gold' with the right >> configuration options. ÂI think that 'whole program optimization' >> (-whopr?) might require 'gold'. > Apparently, gold now works for ARM. Unfortunately, the output of gold > does not seem to work for PowerPC. > > My problem with the absolute linking time of some of my programs for ARM > is also solved by using ld of a recent binutils. > > My main question (out of curiosity) was why linking for ARM might be slower > than for other archs. > Also gold exhibits that behaviour, as I found out yesterday: > Linking the same application for ARM takes about 20-30% longer than > for X86 and PPC. The resulting executable is biggest for PowerPC, > so that cannot be the reason; also the differences in size are not large > enough to explain the time figures. > Any ideas what makes ARM different for the linker? I took a quick look on the sourceware.org bugzilla... I don't see any bugs open on slow arm linking with ld or gold. Maybe it would be good to open a new bug with some of the data you have collected with ld vs. gold? And maybe a second for your powerpc gold issue, as I also didn't find any open bugs for that issue. > Regards > Titus > > Happy Holidays, -Bryan -- For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |