Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 21:12:32 -0500 (CDT) From: Robert Bonomi <bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: profiling library smaller than non-profiling, while it contains more symbols. Why? Message-ID: <201207130212.q6D2CWAU046010@mail.r-bonomi.com> In-Reply-To: <20120712223130.GA58047@mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Thu Jul 12 17:34:12 2012 > Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 23:31:31 +0100 > From: Anton Shterenlikht <mexas@bristol.ac.uk> > To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > Subject: profiling library smaller than non-profiling, > while it contains more symbols. Why? > > While updating my port (math/slatec) to use > the new OPTIONS framework, I did some > experiments with the profiling library. > > I don't know much about this, so what surprised me > is that the profiling library is smaller: > > # ls -al lib*a > -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 6582354 Jul 12 22:56 libslatec.a > -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 6555122 Jul 12 23:02 libslatec_p.a > # It it possible that libslatac.a has debggingn symbols, and the profiling library does not? Or that the profiling library was compiled with a lower degree of optimization ? (many of the 'higher'-level optimizations cause _larger_, albeit faster, code to be generated) Any other differences in compilation flags?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201207130212.q6D2CWAU046010>