On Fri, May 06, 2011 at 10:15:28AM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote: > Just noticed I still have Ms for this. Has it been tested on enough > arch yet? So far I know it's been run on > > amd64 (sthen) > armish (sthen) > i386 (aja, sthen) > macppc (aja, sthen) > loongson (phessler) > > Any others? Considering how much it sucks if ld.so is broken, it would > be good to have reports from a few more arch, I would think hppa and > sparc64 as a minimum.
sparc64 and loongson here, no issues. > On 2011/04/28 08:45, Antoine Jacoutot wrote: > > On Sat, 23 Apr 2011, Dale Rahn wrote: > > > > > Here is a diff that was originally hatched at c2k10 and finally > > > implemented > > > at k2k11. This has been tested lightly so needs to be tested on all > > > systems > > > with big and small programs. > > > > > > On some machines this can shave 15% off of the startup time of large > > > applications with lots of dynamically loaded libraries. > > > > > > Please test and let me know if there are any problems found. > > > > > > Yes I am intentionally cross posting this to ports@ as large ports > > > are the most affected by this diff. > > > > > > Maybe this will finally get ajacoutot@ off my back ;) > > > > Heh ;-) > > > > Anyway, I've been running with several variations of that diff on > > some machines (i386 and macppc) for several weeks without seeing any > > regressions. > > And I can confirm large beasts do benefit from it. > > > > -- > > Antoine > > > -- Cheers, Jasper "Capable, generous men do not create victims, they nurture them."
