Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 11:02:04 -0500 From: Alexander Kabaev <kabaev@gmail.com> To: "Mark Felder" <feld@feld.me> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: rtld optimizations Message-ID: <20110126110204.074b5844@kan.dnsalias.net> In-Reply-To: <op.vpw84o0b34t2sn@tech304> References: <AANLkTikwHteyqMfMpy_B-AxQ5ZQ_Z3RKhkNpGN23fXtX@mail.gmail.com> <20110125234911.223d8f75@kan.dnsalias.net> <op.vpw84o0b34t2sn@tech304>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Sig_/azEq504onH=hb/AypFpCqA0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 09:25:27 -0600 "Mark Felder" <feld@feld.me> wrote: > On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 22:49:11 -0600, Alexander Kabaev > <kabaev@gmail.com> wrote: >=20 > > The only extra quirk that said commit > > does is an optimization of a dlsym() call, which is hardly ever in > > critical performance path. >=20 > It's really not my place to say, but it seems strange that if an =20 > optimization is available people would ignore it because they don't > think it's important enough. I don't understand this mentality; if > it's not going to break anything and it obviously can improve > performance in certain use cases, why not merge it and make FreeBSD > even better? >=20 >=20 The link to patch with said optimization is provided and one would hope the next email on this thread provides something more alike to hard numbers proving that it actually helps, instead of mentality discussions. --=20 Alexander Kabaev --Sig_/azEq504onH=hb/AypFpCqA0 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFNQEWBQ6z1jMm+XZYRAjZ+AKDVLMZJd/Bss0XHO6Utmo53LExoSACdE/7L L4t0kO5xil3UgPhl4X1kP38= =WfM2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/azEq504onH=hb/AypFpCqA0--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110126110204.074b5844>