Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2012 00:13:58 +0200 From: musl <b.brezillon.musl@...il.com> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: ldso : dladdr support On 24/08/2012 20:38, Rich Felker wrote: > 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. I executed your test program (gnuhash) with and without bloom filter test, and I get pretty much the same results in both cases if the symbol is defined. What compiler option did you use to compile gnuhash.c ? I also tried to search for a missing symbol and the version with bloom filter is 3% faster. I'll do more tests with bigger libs and different linker optimizations (some linker optims change the number of buckets in the hash table => less entries per hash chains => faster search in case there's no valid entry for a given name). > > 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.