This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Large, modular C++ application performance ...
- From: michael meeks <michael dot meeks at novell dot com>
- To: Steven Bosscher <stevenb at novell dot com>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>, Giovanni Bajo <rasky at develer dot com>
- Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 10:22:10 +0100
- Subject: Re: Large, modular C++ application performance ...
- References: <1122666555.19624.25.camel@linux.site> <17131.47092.25498.822504@zapata.pink> <1122889487.19624.111.camel@linux.site> <200508011418.38489.stevenb@novell.com>
- Reply-to: michael dot meeks at novell dot com
On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 14:18 +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Monday 01 August 2005 11:44, michael meeks wrote:
> > However - the log(s) term is rather irrelevant to my argument :-)
>
> Not really. Maybe the oprofile results for the linker show that the
> behavior is worse, or maybe better - who knows :-)
> Have you looked at any profiles btw? Just for the curious...
Yes - identifying the linker and relocation processing as the root
cause of the problem isn't just a stab in the dark :-)
This flgas up as the no.1 (individual) performance killer with whatever
profiling tools you use eg.:
* vtune
* speedprof
* instrumenting top/tail of dlopen calls
etc. :-)
Regards,
Michael.
--
michael.meeks@novell.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot