[lld] r250808 - [ELF2] - Lazy relocation support for x86_64.

[Rui Ueyama via llvm-commits]

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 1:36 PM, George Rimar <grimar at accesssoftek.com>
wrote:

> >>That would be awesome. Please be careful about the detail conditions
> because the symbol resolution performance is affected by various conditions
> such as library search order, symbol name, etc. Probably the easiest way to
> evaluate that is to use a real world program, such as Clang, as a benchmark.
> >
> >What about that synthetic case: 1 DSO with N generated functions and 1
> caller file with N * 2 calls to this different N functions.
> >Comparing time of first N calls and second N calls we can know the time
> of N dynamic resolvings and time of clear N calls since PLT table will be
> filled with actual addresses after first N calls.
> >
> >That test may be good to measure the bare performance, but I guess that's
> synthetic. One of the big selling points of lazy binding is that it would
> reduce the number of symbol resolution because not all function are
> actually used.
>
> Ok. So as using clang do you mean to build something ? What about compare
> time of self-hosting with and w/o lazy code then ?
>

That I don't know. My wild guess is compiling something is too large as a
task that that would hide the effect of lazy binding, but I'd have to try.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/attachments/20151020/022deec8/attachment.html>