[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > When I use embedding glue, a small local html file comes up in 22s, 7 > seconds is spent in XPCOMGlueStartup. > When I use Dependent glue, the same local html file comes up in 15s > seconds. I do not call XPCOMGlueStartup.
Now you need to profile the 7 seconds in XPCOMGlueStartup to see where the time is being spent. I suspect that it's almost all in the dynamic linker, loading the .so files off disk and performing relocations, but before going further you should confirm my suspicions. > I think you're indeed ;-) Would the use of gcc 4.2 improve start-up > time in a significant way ? both in dependent and embedding glue ? If relocation-processing time is the issue, then yes, gcc 4.2 will significantly improve load time of libxul.so in both scenarios. The only difference should be *when* the relocation is performed: 1) dependent glue: loading libxul.so and doing relocations performed at startup time, before main() 2) embedding glue: loading libxul.so and doing relocations performed at XPCOMGlueStartup time --BDS _______________________________________________ dev-embedding mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-embedding
