Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2012 09:42:38 +0200 From: boris brezillon <b.brezillon.musl@...il.com> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: ldso : dladdr support 2012/8/24 Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx>: > 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? No, but I'm not an expert in size/speed code optimization. > >> 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? I'll do some tests with multiple levels of big libraries : prog -> libtest -> libc -> libb -> liba ... How do you get your perf results (specific tools, time measurement inside libc code, time measurement in main program, ...)? > > 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 agree. > > 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.