[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121002174611.GX254@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
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.
