From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/1741 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: ldso : dladdr support Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 14:38:50 -0400 Message-ID: <20120824183850.GH27715@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20120811230536.GQ27715@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20120817053934.GS27715@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <50311776.9040802@gmail.com> <20120820020626.GD27715@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <503233A8.8000604@gmail.com> <50324A60.7040206@gmail.com> <20120823213937.GS27715@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20120823222113.GT27715@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <50372D59.7090604@gmail.com> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1345833435 6669 80.91.229.3 (24 Aug 2012 18:37:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 18:37:15 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-1742-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Fri Aug 24 20:37:16 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1T4yks-0002KV-F0 for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 20:37:14 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 24007 invoked by uid 550); 24 Aug 2012 18:37:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 23997 invoked from network); 24 Aug 2012 18:37:12 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <50372D59.7090604@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:1741 Archived-At: On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 09:29:29AM +0200, musl wrote: > I tested it and it works well. Is there anything I changed that you think might be better done a different way? > My tests are based on small libs (with a small set of shared symbols). > I mixed libs with gnu hash and sysv hash. > Tried to resolve symbols via dlsym. > > Have you tested it on big libraries ? No, just very minimal testing. > Do you want me to do some specific tests ? Actually, the main thing I'm interested in is whether the bloom filter is ever beneficial. I took it out trying to streamline the code and shaved about 8% off the lookup time for symbols in the main program, but I didn't investigate how the change affects symbols not found in the first file searched. Would you be interested in running some tests to determine if it might be useful to try adding it back? Since it seems to be working/non-broken right now, I'll probably go ahead and commit soon unless you find a major problem I've overlooked. Then we can work on improving it once it's in the repo. Rich