[cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] Why do we static link all llvm libraries in every executable?

[Yin Ma via cfe-dev]

Hi,

 

Thank you for explaining and providing the option. I will give a try. 

10x slower..on Linux? If we limit the number of global symbols exposed, it will 

help the situation?

 

Yin 

 

From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of David Blaikie via llvm-dev
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 7:46 AM
To: Yury Gribov
Cc: llvm-dev; Clang Dev
Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Why do we static link all llvm libraries in every executable?

 

 

 

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:44 AM, Yury Gribov via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> > wrote:

On 01/25/2016 09:16 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev wrote:

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:13:35AM -0800, Yin Ma via llvm-dev wrote:

If we separate several shared libraries something like
libclang.so, libllvm.so and let all executables and llvmgold.so just
linked with .so. A lot of space could be saved and
loading performance could be improved.


There is a build option to do exactly that. It comes at a significant
price for startup, e.g. clang will take 10x as long for building a small
example.


Is this to process runtime relocations or run constructors? I wonder if Prelink or ElfHack could help.

 

Runtime relocations, I would imagine (global ctors would have to run in either mode - so shouldn't represent a difference, I would think?)

 

 

Joerg
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> 
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev


_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> 
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20160126/cb1dc4fb/attachment.html>