From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-58224-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 22613 invoked by alias); 27 Aug 2008 20:58:27 -0000
Received: (qmail 22597 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Aug 2008 20:58:26 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 20:57:47 +0000
Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) 	by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 028CB98200; 	Wed, 27 Aug 2008 20:57:46 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) 	by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC031981F0; 	Wed, 27 Aug 2008 20:57:45 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) 	(envelope-from <drow@caradoc.them.org>) 	id 1KYS5J-00037e-51; Wed, 27 Aug 2008 16:57:45 -0400
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 20:58:00 -0000
From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
To: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: RFA: shrink minimal symbols
Message-ID: <20080827205745.GA10837@caradoc.them.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>, 	gdb-patches@sourceware.org
References: <m3ljyi449t.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <m3ljyi449t.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11)
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2008-08/txt/msg00647.txt.bz2

On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 02:00:30PM -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
> I consistently see memory reductions of 4-8%.  Some figures:
> 
>     Program    Before    After       %
> 
>     OO.o       73490432  70692864  3.8
>     firefox    35336192  32542720  7.9
>     libgcj     15466496  14970880  3.2

The OO.o/firefox numbers are with shared libraries loaded, I assume.

Do you have any performance comparison?  I'm not too worried about
lookup performance - number of lookups is relatively low though with
full debug info I'd expect it to be linear to the number of minimal
symbols.  But I am concerned about startup time.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery