From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Jul 13 02:24:24 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76CEA106566B
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Fri, 13 Jul 2012 02:24:24 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com)
Received: from mail.r-bonomi.com (mx-out.r-bonomi.com [204.87.227.120])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18ABB8FC1A
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Fri, 13 Jul 2012 02:24:23 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (from bonomi@localhost)
	by mail.r-bonomi.com (8.14.4/rdb1) id q6D2PWvE046140
	for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 21:25:32 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 21:25:32 -0500 (CDT)
From: Robert Bonomi <bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com>
Message-Id: <201207130225.q6D2PWvE046140@mail.r-bonomi.com>
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <20120712225218.GA69013@mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: profiling library smaller than non-profiling,
	while it contains more symbols. Why?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 02:24:24 -0000


> Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 23:52:18 +0100
> From: Anton Shterenlikht <mexas@bristol.ac.uk>
> Subject: Re: profiling library smaller than non-profiling,
> 	while it contains more symbols. Why?
>
> Also, the library compiled on amd64 has lots more
> symbols than if compiled on ia64.

This is _not_ unexpected with different processor architectures, and thus
different instruction sets.

Speculation: the values lfor the .LC* variables look like bit-masks -- it 
may be that ia64 has opcodes that allow immediate operannds, obviating
the need for a 'data' consntat in memory.

"Something" in the source causes different processor-specific code to be
generated -- one processor uses 'data' constants, the other doesn't.