Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 14:38:50 -0400 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: ldso : dladdr support On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 09:29:29AM +0200, musl wrote: > I tested it and it works well. Is there anything I changed that you think might be better done a different way? > My tests are based on small libs (with a small set of shared symbols). > I mixed libs with gnu hash and sysv hash. > Tried to resolve symbols via dlsym. > > Have you tested it on big libraries ? No, just very minimal testing. > Do you want me to do some specific tests ? Actually, the main thing I'm interested in is whether the bloom filter is ever beneficial. I took it out trying to streamline the code and shaved about 8% off the lookup time for symbols in the main program, but I didn't investigate how the change affects symbols not found in the first file searched. Would you be interested in running some tests to determine if it might be useful to try adding it back? Since it seems to be working/non-broken right now, I'll probably go ahead and commit soon unless you find a major problem I've overlooked. Then we can work on improving it once it's in the repo. Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.