Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2025 13:32:56 +0100 From: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com> To: Rozhuk Ivan <rozhuk.im@gmail.com> Cc: Konstantin Belousov <kib@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, emaste@freebsd.org Subject: Re: performance regressions in 15.0 Message-ID: <CAGudoHGSVsaX31fRepzj4bSp%2Bh04XfUM_rYxQHc%2B1kubLp7dvQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20251207203109.6d58b901@rimwks.local> References: <CAGudoHFUJ23yUWPq7_VS2ek0zoGQOS42HB00n-hWspA3Cb4-XQ@mail.gmail.com> <aTRm0WW7xaKsOKx1@kib.kiev.ua> <20251206222638.44edcd5c@rimwks.local> <CAGudoHF5kNmyeRu0pbmUvQCWwfazC4nzRgXHkbJeFsDer94dOA@mail.gmail.com> <20251207203109.6d58b901@rimwks.local>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Sun, Dec 7, 2025 at 7:31 PM Rozhuk Ivan <rozhuk.im@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, 7 Dec 2025 11:07:48 +0100 > Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com> wrote: > > That is to say, if you have time, can you please benchmark a > > statically linked clang vs clang which merely reverting the libprivate > > change? Should be a small speed up on top. > > NO_SHARED - it was static link with libc and probably other system libs. > Now clang splitted into set of libs, it is a bit different thing. > It is indeed a different thing and I am saying it also likely reduces performance compared to what it can be without the recent libprivat problem. It very much warrants benchmarking.home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAGudoHGSVsaX31fRepzj4bSp%2Bh04XfUM_rYxQHc%2B1kubLp7dvQ>