-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Any chance that the machine that was so much slower ran into memory
swapping problems to make it take so much longer?
On Wed, 26 Apr 2000, Alan Modra wrote:
> Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000 11:16:49 +1000 (EST)
> From: Alan Modra <email@example.com>
> To: Graham Stoney <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <email@example.com>,
> Linux kernel mailing list <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Generic dead function optimisation
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2000, Graham Stoney wrote:
> > Yes; makes it backwards compatible, but harder to ensure that it's kicking in.
> > Mind you, since I have to use KEEP in the .lds files, which was introduced to
> > help with --gc-sections, I don't know if the patch will work for folks with
> > very old (i.e. pre --gc-sections) binutils.
> Richard Henderson added KEEP mid 1998.
> > > Interesting that 'ld --gc-sections' takes about 15x longer than normal.
> > I haven't delved into this, but on PowerPC it takes no longer than normal, and
> > links in under a second. I think what you're seeing is platform specific.
> > Certainly we'd need to keep the x86 folks happy though, so we'd need to sort
> > this out.
> I'm really curious about this. ppc uses the same orphan processing as
> x86, ie. ld/emultemp/elf32.em, so both architectures should show the same
> slowdown. I wonder what's different.
> Linuxcare. Support for the Revolution.
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to email@example.com
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 30 2000 - 21:00:11 EST