Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 13:46:11 -0400 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: musl for ARM On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 06:39:32PM +0200, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > * Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> [2012-10-02 09:48:43 -0400]: > > One area you can get vastly better performance with musl is > > application startup overhead. Especially with static linking, but even > > with dynamic linking if your only .so is libc, the startup time is > > 2-5x faster than glibc, which really makes a difference to the runtime > > of shell scripts (like configure) that invoke tons of external > > programs. > > > > i don't see this mentioned on the libc comparision table > > is this the self-exec benchmark? Yes. That definitely could be better-documented. self-exec is the best/only way I've found to measure the actual startup overhead, as opposed to just aggregate time to run a simple program. > linux/types.h only typedefs fd_set ifdef __KERNEL__ > so userspace code shouldnt see fd_set at all, > only __kernel_fd_set > > i think busybox is doing something wrong there Yes, something is amiss... 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.