[llvm-dev] Default compression level for -compress-debug-info=zlib?

[Rui Ueyama via llvm-dev]

Here is the results of linking clang (with debug info) with various
compression levels. Apparently, the current compression level 9 seems
overkill.

Level   Time            Size
0       0m17.128s       2045081496   Z_NO_COMPRESSION
1       0m31.471s       922618584    Z_BEST_SPEED
2       0m32.659s       903642376
3       0m36.749s       890805856
4       0m41.532s       876697184
5       0m48.383s       862778576
6       1m3.176s        855251640    Z_DEFAULT_COMPRESSION
7       1m15.335s       853755920
8       2m0.561s        852497560
9       2m33.972s       852397408    Z_BEST_COMPRESSION

On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 3:09 AM Pavel Labath <labath at google.com> wrote:

> I don't claim to be an expert, but I did some zlib compression
> benchmarks in the past. IIRC, my conclusion from that was that the
> "DEFAULT" zlib level (6) is indeed a very good default for a lot of
> cases -- it does not generate much larger outputs, while being
> significantly faster than the max level. This all depends on the data
> set and what you intend to do with the resulting data, of course, but
> I guess my point is you don't have to choose only between 1 and 9. I
> think it would be interesting to at least get the data for the default
> level before making choice.
>
> cheers,
> pl
> On Thu, 2 Aug 2018 at 01:57, Rui Ueyama via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >
> > Folks,
> >
> > I'd like to get expert's opinion on which compression level is suitable
> for lld's -compress-debug-section=zlib option, which let the linker
> compress .debug_* sections using zlib.
> >
> > Currently, lld uses compression level 9 which produces the smallest
> output in exchange for a longer link time. My question is, is this what
> people actually want? We didn't consciously choose compression level 9.
> That was just the default compression level for zlib::compress function.
> >
> > For an experiment, I created a patch to use compression level 1 instead
> of 9 and linked clang using that modified lld. By default, lld takes 1m4s
> to link clang with --compress-debug-sections=zlib. With that patch, it took
> only 31s.
> >
> > Here is a comparison of clang executable size with various
> configurations:
> >
> > no debug sections:    275 MB
> > level 9 compression:  855 MB
> > level 1 compression:  922 MB
> > no compression:      2044 MB
> >
> > Given that the best compression takes significantly longer time than the
> fastest compression, we probably should change the default to level 1. Any
> objections?
> >
> > I wonder what is the best compression level when -O2 is passed to lld.
> We could use level 9 when -O2 is passed, but is there any reason to
> compress debug sections that hard in the first place?
> > _______________________________________________
> > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180802/a190a229/attachment.html>