[udk-issues] [Issue 63927] linux / linking speedup .. .
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=63927 User sb changed the following: What|Old value |New value Status|RESOLVED |CLOSED --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Aug 29 08:59:24 + 2008 --- . - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[udk-issues] [Issue 63927] linux / linking speedup .. .
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=63927 --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Aug 27 09:18:30 + 2008 --- So - I've updated the patch in ooo-build (changes under JCA etc.) to actually work again ;-) s/match/indexOf/ binning the UPD suffix, finding libexlink at the right path etc. and it works for me. The effect however is far more marginal with a modern toolchain: this is a result of the --hash-style=gnu work going up-stream making relocation far faster. Also - Caolan's work to glup together the lots of tiny libraries into a single stoc library helps too, and in part the problem is exacerbated on a modern system by X being fragmented into umpteen small libraries itself ;-( Proving there is an effect is now down to: LD_DEBUG=statistics ./soffice.bin -writer 21 | wc -l vs. with OOO_DISABLE_INTERNAL=1 that gives me a ~7% drop in lookups. - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[udk-issues] [Issue 63927] linux / linking speedup .. .
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=63927 User sb changed the following: What|Old value |New value Status|STARTED |RESOLVED Resolution| |WONTFIX --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Aug 27 10:42:39 + 2008 --- @mmeeks: Correct me if I am wrong, but given those marginal improvements (still, for my test machine the patch does not make a noticeable difference in startup time), I consider the added complexity introduced by the patch and the remaining open issues (parameterize cppuhelper on the exact name of libexlink; determine which libraries are internal) unwarranted. Therefore, I am changing this issue to WONTFIX. - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[udk-issues] [Issue 63927] linux / linking speedup .. .
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=63927
--- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Aug 21 08:05:33 +
2008 ---
Applying slight modifications (fixing obvious errors; making sure *all* internal
libraries relevant for startup are actually detected as internal) of
http://svn.gnome.org/viewvc/ooo-build/trunk/patches/dev300/speed-local-link.diff?revision=12380view=markup
and
http://svn.gnome.org/viewvc/ooo-build/trunk/patches/dev300/speed-local-link-except.diff?revision=12937view=markup
to DEV300m29, building unxlngi6.pro with the Sun Hamburg tool chain, and
executing soffice on a random Ubuntu box (Linux v20z-so3 2.6.15-29-server #1 SMP
Mon Sep 24 17:37:57 UTC 2007 i686 GNU/Linux) with RTL_LOGFILE set appropriately,
then whether OOO_DISABLE_INTERNAL is unset or =1 does not seem to make any
difference. The resulting log files all look more or less like
opening log file 1219305051.526439 seconds past January 1st 1970
corresponding to 6 ms after timer start
Process id is 14911
06 1 | : PERFORMANCE - enter Main()
001729 1 | : PERFORMANCE - enter Application::Execute()
001729 1 { PERFORMANCE - DesktopOpenClients_Impl()
001734 1 } PERFORMANCE - DesktopOpenClients_Impl()
closing log file at 005519
@mmeeks: Am I missing something (e.g., is the patch only useful for specific
tool chains or OS versions)?
-
Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from
Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments.
http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[udk-issues] [Issue 63927] linux / linking speedup .. .
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=63927 User aziem changed the following: What|Old value |New value CC|'jsc,kr,sb,utomo99' |'aziem,jsc,kr,sb,utomo99' - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[udk-issues] [Issue 63927] linux / linking speedup .. .
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=63927 User sb changed the following: What|Old value |New value Target milestone|OOo 3.0 |OOo 3.x --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jun 2 15:03:15 + 2008 --- unfortunately won't find time to get this into OOo 3.0 precisely - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[udk-issues] [Issue 63927] linux / linking speedup .. .
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=63927 User sb changed the following: What|Old value |New value Issue type|PATCH |ENHANCEMENT - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[udk-issues] [Issue 63927] linux / linking speedup .. .
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=63927 --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Dec 3 15:38:22 + 2007 --- @mmeeks: - updated the patch: Is that updated patch available somewhere? - move libexcept generation into cppu: I think that is not a good idea. At least conceptually, offapi is part of OOo proper and cppu/cppuhelper are part of URE, so they should not depend on offapi. Why not go with the solution I sketched at #desc19? - I'll stand to my word. If you want me to, I can do the work of getting this integrated in OOo 3.0. Just pass me this issue in that case. - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[udk-issues] [Issue 63927] linux / linking speedup .. .
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=63927 User mmeeks changed the following: What|Old value |New value Assigned to|mmeeks|sb --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Dec 4 05:14:58 + 2007 --- Hi Stephan: - updated the patch: Is that updated patch available somewhere? Yes, the latest version (available under the JCA) is here: http://svn.gnome.org/viewvc/ooo-build/trunk/patches/src680/ speed-local-link.diff and speed-local-link-except.diff move libexcept generation into cppu: I think that is not a good idea. At least conceptually, offapi is part of OOo proper and cppu/cppuhelper are part of URE, so they should not depend on offapi. Why not go with the solution I sketched at #desc19? that sounds fine to me; I've no problem with that and it's fairly trivial, but not implemented. We had problems with build dependencies breaking this in the past - hence the move. I'll stand to my word. If you want me to, I can do the work of getting this integrated in OOo 3.0. Just pass me this issue in that case. many thanks :-) - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[udk-issues] [Issue 63927] linux / linking speedup .. .
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=63927 User sb changed the following: What|Old value |New value Status|NEW |STARTED Target milestone|OOo 2.x |OOo 3.0 --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Dec 4 07:48:11 + 2007 --- . - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[udk-issues] [Issue 63927] linux / linking speedup .. .
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=63927 --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jul 9 13:20:03 + 2007 --- updated the patch to move libexcept generation into cppu - to reflect the new build dependency changes that broke the previous version. - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[udk-issues] [Issue 63927] linux / linking speedup .. .
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=63927 --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Jun 27 15:46:26 + 2007 --- To prevent frustration among patch writers, all issues of type PATCH are monitored for extended inactivity periods, see http://eis.services.openoffice.org/patchreport/irt_index.html and http://eis.services.openoffice.org/patchreport/iit_index.html. Please proceed with this issue in an appropriate way, to satisfy the statistics and avoid frustration. Thanks. [http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Uno/Misc/InactivePatchIssueReminder] - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[udk-issues] [Issue 63927] linux / linking speedup .. .
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=63927 --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Apr 11 14:02:32 + 2007 --- To prevent frustration among patch writers, all issues of type PATCH are monitored for extended inactivity periods, see http://eis.services.openoffice.org/patchreport/irt_index.html and http://eis.services.openoffice.org/patchreport/iit_index.html. Please proceed with this issue in an appropriate way, to satisfy the statistics and avoid frustration. Thanks. [http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Uno/Misc/InactivePatchIssueReminder] - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[udk-issues] [Issue 63927] linux / linking speedup .. .
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=63927 User utomo99 changed the following: What|Old value |New value CC|'jsc,kr,sb' |'jsc,kr,sb,utomo99' Keywords| |oooqa --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Jan 2 03:52:57 -0800 2007 --- I think it is better if possible the target is OOo 2.2 instead of 2.x. This issue originally target OOo 2.04. just my 2c. Thanks - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[udk-issues] [Issue 63927] linux / linking speedup .. .
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=63927 User pjanik changed the following: What|Old value |New value Target milestone|OOo 2.1 |OOo 2.x --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Nov 10 00:25:53 -0800 2006 --- retarget again. - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[udk-issues] [Issue 63927] linux / linking speedup .. .
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=63927 User mh changed the following: What|Old value |New value Target milestone|OOo 2.0.4 |OOo 2.1 --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Aug 21 01:53:56 -0700 2006 --- re set target to 2.1 - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[udk-issues] [Issue 63927] linux / linking speedup .. .
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=63927 User sb changed the following: What|Old value |New value Assigned to|sb|mmeeks --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Aug 14 05:18:21 -0700 2006 --- @mmeeks: This issue had slipped from my radar while you were the owner. Re-reading all the comments, what is missing is to parameterize cppuhelper on the exact name of libexlink. I just now have an idea that I think is even better: Export some specially-named symbol like cppuhelper_shlib_dlopen_local_hack from libexlink, link soffice.bin against libexlink, and in cppuhelper/shlib.cxx use dlerror();dlsym(RTLD_DEFAULT,cppuhelper_shlib_dlopen_local_hack);dlerror()!=NULL; as the last step of determining whether lcl_isInternalLibrary returns true. Can you adapt your patch accordingly? (Regarding the other open issue, I leave it up to you whether you properly define get_this_libpath in a header, or keep it the dirty way for this temporary hack.) - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[udk-issues] [Issue 63927] linux / linking speedup .. .
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=63927 --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Aug 11 08:26:47 -0700 2006 --- Michael? target 2.1? - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[udk-issues] [Issue 63927] linux / linking speedup .. .
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=63927 User mmeeks changed the following: What|Old value |New value Assigned to|mmeeks|sb --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Aug 11 09:51:43 -0700 2006 --- Um, sure - I'm waiting for some movement / plan from sb. I'm happy to help integrate it, and it's certainly a nice win - but ... Stefan ? is this really blocking for 4 months on a header change ? :-) - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[udk-issues] [Issue 63927] linux / linking speedup . ..
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=63927 --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed May 10 03:08:04 -0700 2006 --- I see, I had thought of sal/rtl/source/bootstrap.cxx instead. Anyway, get_this_libpath should be declared in a header if it is used from two source files... - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[udk-issues] [Issue 63927] linux / linking speedup . ..
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=63927 --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Apr 24 07:01:51 -0700 2006 --- - shlib.cxx: There is no get_this_libpath anywhere in sal SRC680m160. no ? not in bootstrap.cxx ? - cvs history says it is. what revision of that file? cppuhelper/source/bootstrap.cxx rec. 1.24 (SRC680_m162) line ~86 HTH. - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[udk-issues] [Issue 63927] linux / linking speedup . ..
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=63927 --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Apr 18 08:13:17 -0700 2006 --- - shlib.cxx: There is no get_this_libpath anywhere in sal SRC680m160. no ? not in bootstrap.cxx ? - cvs history says it is. what revision of that file? - shlib.cxx, lcl_isInternalLibrary: sal is part of URE, but libexlink.so cannot be part of URE, as it contains information about OOo-specific (non-URE) UNO types. The hard-coded approach to dlopen libexlink.so from within sal when needed is thus too naive. Yes - of course ;-) if you can come up with a better plan I'm all for it. We can register a callback with UNO I guess from some upper level - but ... this is your world. What is needed is clear, how to structure it is not (to me). So, some work ahead in the 2.0.4 timeframe before this patch can be included... - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[udk-issues] [Issue 63927] linux / linking speedup . ..
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=63927 --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Apr 12 07:51:50 -0700 2006 --- Response to review comments: - shlib.cxx, first #ifdef LINUX block: It should be stated in a comment that the complete block is only a temporary hack (otherwise, hacks like the extern get_this_libpath thing should not be done in such a dirty way). done. - shlib.cxx, These are loaded at startup: What is the criterium for including a shared library from program/ in this list? Some that are loaded at startup are not included (e.g., libuno_sal.so.3), some that are not UNO components are included (e.g., libreg.so.3), some that export symbols other than _ZT[IN]* or component_* are included (e.g., behelper.uno.so). libreg is the only non-component - I removed it. wrt. exporting symbols - that's fine, if you need them you have to link at compile time = no issue. - shlib.cxx: !rLibName.match(pLookup[i]) evaluates to true when the two do not match---is that intended? urg yes - too used to strcasecmp; fixed. - shlib.cxx: There is no get_this_libpath anywhere in sal SRC680m160. no ? not in bootstrap.cxx ? - cvs history says it is. - shlib.cxx, ...symbols in a signal, global...: Should read ...symbols in a single, global... fixed. - shlib.cxx, lcl_isInternalLibrary: Use OSL_TRACE or similar instead of fprintf. commented out, but still fprintf ;-) never trusted/liked OSL_TRACE. - shlib.cxx, lcl_isInternalLibrary: The name of the exlink library should probably be libexlink.so instead of libexlink680li.so---merely depending on the offapi UNOIDL types is generally not considered depending on SUPD. Hmm, ok - but of course it's C++ compiler ABI dependant, also, it's necessary to have -all- UNO types in there; but as you like - easy to fix, I leave it to you ? - shlib.cxx, lcl_isInternalLibrary: sal is part of URE, but libexlink.so cannot be part of URE, as it contains information about OOo-specific (non-URE) UNO types. The hard-coded approach to dlopen libexlink.so from within sal when needed is thus too naive. Yes - of course ;-) if you can come up with a better plan I'm all for it. We can register a callback with UNO I guess from some upper level - but ... this is your world. What is needed is clear, how to structure it is not (to me). - shlib.cxx, // else - faster local only binding: The formatting of this comment is confusing---what does it refer to? the case where it is an internal library; ie. !SAL_LOADMODULE_GLOBAL is 'local', so ... - cppumaker.cxx, /catch.hxx: I would expect the name of this file to be specified on the command line (rationale: its contents depends on what types you specify on the command line, so there is not *the* universal catch.hxx). (Thinking about it, writing out a single catch.hxx might be too naive, in that it forces us to stay with the current approach of calling cppumaker only once for all types together, instead of more selectively for subsets.) ok - fine; I added the -E argument. - cppumaker.cxx: Why have both aExceptionNames and aIncludes, if the members of one can be computed from the members of the other (via scopedName)? Fixed, things changed here for the better from 2.0.2 to m161 I think, easier now. - cppumaker.cxx: Minor issue: aStr.getStr() is better than (const sal_Char *) aStr. Fixed - it's ok to use FILE / stdio stuff here ? /me never builds on win32 so ... - cpputype.cxx: Minor issue: aExceptionNames.push_back(aTypeName) is more idiomatic than aExceptionNames.insert(aExceptionNames.end(), aTypeName). fixed. - cpputype.hxx: There is no do_internal anywhere in codemaker SRC680m160. fixed. - except.cxx: If I understand correctly, catch.hxx only includes .hpps for exception types; does this cause any .hpps to be recursively included that have problems with major, minor, auto? Nah - the major/minor/auto stuff is a throw-back to trying to share much more code: which turned out to be a waste of time ;-) - Please use no tabs, and no more than 80 characters per line. This is a OOo policy that often gets broken, and seems not to be documented anywhere any longer, but I at least still consider it an important policy, so I cannot finish this review without mentioning it. ;) I use (or should use) 4 stop tabs (as instructed), seriously - if you read the diff it looks terrible: this is because the whole unix terminal, insert-rest-of-world etc. uses 8 stop tabs ;-) of course when you apply the diff load in your text editor things should look fine [ I hope ]. - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments.
[udk-issues] [Issue 63927] linux / linking speedup . ..
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=63927 User mmeeks changed the following: What|Old value |New value Attachment is patch| |Created an attachment | |(id=35663) updated | |version. --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Apr 12 07:52:48 -0700 2006 --- Created an attachment (id=35663) updated version. - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[udk-issues] [Issue 63927] linux / linking speedup . ..
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=63927 User mmeeks changed the following: What|Old value |New value Attachment is patch| |Created an attachment | |(id=35664) updated | |version. --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Apr 12 07:52:58 -0700 2006 --- Created an attachment (id=35664) updated version. - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[udk-issues] [Issue 63927] linux / linking speedup . ..
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=63927 User sb changed the following: What|Old value |New value Target milestone|--- |OOo 2.0.4 --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Apr 7 00:16:35 -0700 2006 --- choosing 2.0.4 then :) - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[udk-issues] [Issue 63927] linux / linking speedup . ..
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=63927 --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Apr 6 13:45:50 -0700 2006 --- As you like - I'll try to turn the patch around now ... - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[udk-issues] [Issue 63927] linux / linking speedup . ..
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=63927 --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Apr 5 00:30:21 -0700 2006 --- . - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[udk-issues] [Issue 63927] linux / linking speedup . ..
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=63927 --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Apr 5 04:55:23 -0700 2006 --- Stefan - thanks for the review - a scad of serious problems with it :-) cool. Would you do the CWS magic if I fixup all these problems in the patches ? - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[udk-issues] [Issue 63927] linux / linking speedup . ..
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=63927 --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Apr 5 05:07:33 -0700 2006 --- Yup, I can take care of a CWS. Do we want to hurry and put this into 2.0.3 (I am on vacation from Apr 22 -- May 7), or relax a little and target 2.0.4? - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[udk-issues] [Issue 63927] linux / linking speedup . ..
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=63927 User sb changed the following: What|Old value |New value CC|'kr' |'jsc,kr' Assigned to|sb|mmeeks --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Apr 4 04:56:46 -0700 2006 --- @mmeeks: Just to clarify, do you want me to handle this patch, or do you only want me to review it and want to put it into a CWS yourself? CC'ing jsc in case he has additional input regarding cppumaker. The list of issues I see with the patch: - shlib.cxx, first #ifdef LINUX block: It should be stated in a comment that the complete block is only a temporary hack (otherwise, hacks like the extern get_this_libpath thing should not be done in such a dirty way). - shlib.cxx, These are loaded at startup: What is the criterium for including a shared library from program/ in this list? Some that are loaded at startup are not included (e.g., libuno_sal.so.3), some that are not UNO components are included (e.g., libreg.so.3), some that export symbols other than _ZT[IN]* or component_* are included (e.g., behelper.uno.so). - shlib.cxx: !rLibName.match(pLookup[i]) evaluates to true when the two do not match---is that intended? - shlib.cxx: There is no get_this_libpath anywhere in sal SRC680m160. - shlib.cxx, ...symbols in a signal, global...: Should read ...symbols in a single, global... - shlib.cxx, lcl_isInternalLibrary: Use OSL_TRACE or similar instead of fprintf. - shlib.cxx, lcl_isInternalLibrary: The name of the exlink library should probably be libexlink.so instead of libexlink680li.so---merely depending on the offapi UNOIDL types is generally not considered depending on SUPD. - shlib.cxx, lcl_isInternalLibrary: sal is part of URE, but libexlink.so cannot be part of URE, as it contains information about OOo-specific (non-URE) UNO types. The hard-coded approach to dlopen libexlink.so from within sal when needed is thus too naive. - shlib.cxx, // else - faster local only binding: The formatting of this comment is confusing---what does it refer to? - cppumaker.cxx, /catch.hxx: I would expect the name of this file to be specified on the command line (rationale: its contents depends on what types you specify on the command line, so there is not *the* universal catch.hxx). (Thinking about it, writing out a single catch.hxx might be too naive, in that it forces us to stay with the current approach of calling cppumaker only once for all types together, instead of more selectively for subsets.) - cppumaker.cxx: Why have both aExceptionNames and aIncludes, if the members of one can be computed from the members of the other (via scopedName)? - cppumaker.cxx: Minor issue: aStr.getStr() is better than (const sal_Char *) aStr. - cpputype.cxx: Minor issue: aExceptionNames.push_back(aTypeName) is more idiomatic than aExceptionNames.insert(aExceptionNames.end(), aTypeName). - cpputype.hxx: There is no do_internal anywhere in codemaker SRC680m160. - except.cxx: If I understand correctly, catch.hxx only includes .hpps for exception types; does this cause any .hpps to be recursively included that have problems with major, minor, auto? - Please use no tabs, and no more than 80 characters per line. This is a OOo policy that often gets broken, and seems not to be documented anywhere any longer, but I at least still consider it an important policy, so I cannot finish this review without mentioning it. ;) - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[udk-issues] [Issue 63927] linux / linking speedup . ..
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=63927 User mmeeks changed the following: What|Old value |New value Attachment is patch| |Created an attachment | |(id=35462) patch. --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Apr 3 04:44:09 -0700 2006 --- Created an attachment (id=35462) patch. - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[udk-issues] [Issue 63927] linux / linking speedup . ..
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=63927 User mmeeks changed the following: What|Old value |New value Attachment is patch| |Created an attachment | |(id=35463) patch - 2nd | |half --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Apr 3 04:44:24 -0700 2006 --- Created an attachment (id=35463) patch - 2nd half - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[udk-issues] [Issue 63927] linux / linking speedup . ..
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=63927 --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Apr 3 04:47:59 -0700 2006 --- So - numbers wise this gives me (from RTL_LOGFILE): export OOO_DISABLE_INTERNAL=1 # old version 5186 5299 5154 5133 Avg: 5190 unset OOO_DISABLE_INTERNAL # new version 4665 4716 4758 4748 Avg: 4720 ie. a 9% speedup overall; a saving of ~450ms on startup. Of course - this is rather Linux/gcc4 specific. - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
