Re: ldso : dladdr support

[boris brezillon <b.brezillon.musl@gmail.com>]

2012/8/24 Rich Felker <dalias@aerifal.cx>:
> 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?

No, but I'm not an expert in size/speed code optimization.

>
>> 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?
I'll do some tests with multiple levels of big libraries : prog ->
libtest -> libc -> libb -> liba ...
How do you get your perf results (specific tools, time measurement
inside libc code, time measurement in main program, ...)?
>
> 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.
I agree.
>
> Rich