[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJ86T=XWVqR9Ht0GRbMVv=nRd=p1rMN15o-cHQQt7x11-RYkgQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 23:23:40 -0700
From: Andre McCurdy <armccurdy@...il.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: building musl libc.so with gcc -flto
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 5:24 PM, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 05:16:12PM -0700, Andre McCurdy wrote:
>> > OK, it looks like the _dlstart_c symbol got removed before linking the
>> > asm. What about selectively compiling this file with -fno-lto via
>> > something like this in config.mak:
>> >
>> > src/ldso/dlstart.lo: CFLAGS += -fno-lto
>>
>> That works. Should I send a patch?
>
> Yes, but configure would need to detect support for -fno-lto and add
> it appropriately. See what's done for CFLAGS_NOSSP. I suspect the crt
> files also need -fno-lto in principle even if they're not currently
> breaking for lack of it.
Patch sent.
I think the crt files might be OK as they are, since the _start_c
symbol isn't being hidden?
>> >> > Also seems rather like what I would expect. Any idea if performance is
>> >> > significantly better? It's not very comprehensive but you could try
>> >> > libc-bench.
>> >>
>> >> I modified libc-bench so that it loops though everything in main() ten
>> >> times and then ran the same libc-bench binary with each version of
>> >> libc.so, sending output to /dev/null.
>> >>
>> >> The -O3 -flto build seems to be consistently very slightly *slower*
>> >> than the non -flto version...
>> >
>> > That makes the whole thing somewhat less interesting. LTO is probably
>> > more interesting for static libc.
>>
>> Yes, quite disappointing...
>>
>> I'll try to experiment a little with static linking.
>
> Great. Let us know how it goes.
>
> 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.
