[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070723180048.GA8268@uranus.ravnborg.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 20:00:48 +0200
From: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
To: Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
Cc: Alan Modra <amodra@...pond.net.au>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: "build-id" changes break sparc64
On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 12:49:36PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 06:55:59PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 10:14:35AM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > > But I would still like to hear from Alan what the benefits are.
> >
> > See http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2004-10/msg00178.html
>
> What does _not_ doing intermediates do to memory footprint of ld(1)
> and time spent in there?
x86_64 defconfig
rm vmlinux*; time make vmlinux
Vanilla tree: ~7,7 sec
With single shot ld (Roland's patch): 8,3 secs
So as expected slower. As we link twice the cost is ~0,3 sec
for a x86_64 defconfig link on my box.
So it should be beneficial to do it and Alan's link did not really
convince me for the kernel usage.
Al - do you have any input there?
Sam
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists