Re: profiling library smaller than non-profiling, while it contains more symbols. Why?
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 6582354 Jul 12 22:56 libslatec.a -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 6555122 Jul 12 23:02 libslatec_p.a # profile library or -fpic library? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: profiling library smaller than non-profiling, while it contains more symbols. Why?
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 09:12:32PM -0500, Robert Bonomi wrote: From owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org Thu Jul 12 17:34:12 2012 Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 23:31:31 +0100 From: Anton Shterenlikht me...@bristol.ac.uk To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: profiling library smaller than non-profiling, while it contains more symbols. Why? While updating my port (math/slatec) to use the new OPTIONS framework, I did some experiments with the profiling library. I don't know much about this, so what surprised me is that the profiling library is smaller: # ls -al lib*a -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 6582354 Jul 12 22:56 libslatec.a -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 6555122 Jul 12 23:02 libslatec_p.a # It it possible that libslatac.a has debggingn symbols, and the profiling library does not? Or that the profiling library was compiled with a lower degree of optimization ? (many of the 'higher'-level optimizations cause _larger_, albeit faster, code to be generated) Any other differences in compilation flags? No, the compilation is very straightforward for this library: === Building for slatec-4.1 Warning: Object directory not changed from original /usr/ports/math/slatec/work/src gfortran46 -O -Wl,-rpath=/usr/local/lib/gcc46 -c aa.f *skip ~1400 other files* gfortran46 -O -Wl,-rpath=/usr/local/lib/gcc46 -c zwrsk.f building static slatec library /usr/local/bin/ranlib libslatec.a gfortran46 -pg -O -Wl,-rpath=/usr/local/lib/gcc46 -o aa.po -c aa.f *skip ~1400 other files* gfortran46 -pg -O -Wl,-rpath=/usr/local/lib/gcc46 -o zwrsk.po -c zwrsk.f building profiled slatec library /usr/local/bin/ranlib libslatec_p.a gfortran46 -fpic -DPIC -O -Wl,-rpath=/usr/local/lib/gcc46 -o aa.So -c aa.f *skip ~1400 other files* gfortran46 -fpic -DPIC -O -Wl,-rpath=/usr/local/lib/gcc46 -o zwrsk.So -c zwrsk.f building shared library libslatec.so.1 # That's all there is. As I mentioned in the original email, the only difference, according to nm(1), between the non-profiling and the profiling library, is that the profiling library contains symbol .mcount (or _mcount, depending on the arch) for each object file. All other symbols are identical. -- Anton Shterenlikht Room 2.6, Queen's Building Mech Eng Dept Bristol University University Walk, Bristol BS8 1TR, UK Tel: +44 (0)117 331 5944 Fax: +44 (0)117 929 4423 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: profiling library smaller than non-profiling, while it contains more symbols. Why?
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 11:15:45AM +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote: -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 6582354 Jul 12 22:56 libslatec.a -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 6555122 Jul 12 23:02 libslatec_p.a # profile library or -fpic library? I think profile: === Building for slatec-4.1 Warning: Object directory not changed from original /usr/ports/math/slatec/work/src gfortran46 -O -Wl,-rpath=/usr/local/lib/gcc46 -c aa.f *skip ~1400 other files* gfortran46 -O -Wl,-rpath=/usr/local/lib/gcc46 -c zwrsk.f building static slatec library /usr/local/bin/ranlib libslatec.a gfortran46 -pg -O -Wl,-rpath=/usr/local/lib/gcc46 -o aa.po -c aa.f *skip ~1400 other files* gfortran46 -pg -O -Wl,-rpath=/usr/local/lib/gcc46 -o zwrsk.po -c zwrsk.f building profiled slatec library /usr/local/bin/ranlib libslatec_p.a gfortran46 -fpic -DPIC -O -Wl,-rpath=/usr/local/lib/gcc46 -o aa.So -c aa.f *skip ~1400 other files* gfortran46 -fpic -DPIC -O -Wl,-rpath=/usr/local/lib/gcc46 -o zwrsk.So -c zwrsk.f building shared library libslatec.so.1 -- Anton Shterenlikht Room 2.6, Queen's Building Mech Eng Dept Bristol University University Walk, Bristol BS8 1TR, UK Tel: +44 (0)117 331 5944 Fax: +44 (0)117 929 4423 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
profiling library smaller than non-profiling, while it contains more symbols. Why?
While updating my port (math/slatec) to use the new OPTIONS framework, I did some experiments with the profiling library. I don't know much about this, so what surprised me is that the profiling library is smaller: # ls -al lib*a -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 6582354 Jul 12 22:56 libslatec.a -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 6555122 Jul 12 23:02 libslatec_p.a # while it adds .mcount symbol to each object file: # nm libslatec.a nm # nm libslatec_p.a nmp # wc nm nmp 16436 36675 373033 nm 17885 39573 413605 nmp 34321 76248 786638 total # grep -c mcount nmp 1449 # expr 16436 + 1449 17885 # Using diff I can confirm that the only difference between the 2 libs is the .mcount symbol for each object file in the profiling library. So how can the profiling library be smaller? -- Anton Shterenlikht Room 2.6, Queen's Building Mech Eng Dept Bristol University University Walk, Bristol BS8 1TR, UK Tel: +44 (0)117 331 5944 Fax: +44 (0)117 929 4423 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: profiling library smaller than non-profiling, while it contains more symbols. Why?
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 11:31:31PM +0100, Anton Shterenlikht wrote: While updating my port (math/slatec) to use the new OPTIONS framework, I did some experiments with the profiling library. I don't know much about this, so what surprised me is that the profiling library is smaller: # ls -al lib*a -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 6582354 Jul 12 22:56 libslatec.a -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 6555122 Jul 12 23:02 libslatec_p.a # while it adds .mcount symbol to each object file: # nm libslatec.a nm # nm libslatec_p.a nmp # wc nm nmp 16436 36675 373033 nm 17885 39573 413605 nmp 34321 76248 786638 total # grep -c mcount nmp 1449 # expr 16436 + 1449 17885 # Using diff I can confirm that the only difference between the 2 libs is the .mcount symbol for each object file in the profiling library. So how can the profiling library be smaller? Also, the library compiled on amd64 has lots more symbols than if compiled on ia64. For example: amd64: zbesy.o: r .LC0 0008 r .LC1 0010 r .LC11 0020 r .LC12 0028 r .LC13 0030 r .LC14 0010 r .LC2 0018 r .LC5 r .LC6 U cos U d1mach_ U exp U i1mach_ U sin U zbesh_ T zbesy_ and ia64: zbesy.o: U cos U d1mach_ U exp U i1mach_ U sin U zbesh_ T zbesy_ Why the difference? -- Anton Shterenlikht Room 2.6, Queen's Building Mech Eng Dept Bristol University University Walk, Bristol BS8 1TR, UK Tel: +44 (0)117 331 5944 Fax: +44 (0)117 929 4423 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: profiling library smaller than non-profiling, while it contains more symbols. Why?
From owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org Thu Jul 12 17:34:12 2012 Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 23:31:31 +0100 From: Anton Shterenlikht me...@bristol.ac.uk To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: profiling library smaller than non-profiling, while it contains more symbols. Why? While updating my port (math/slatec) to use the new OPTIONS framework, I did some experiments with the profiling library. I don't know much about this, so what surprised me is that the profiling library is smaller: # ls -al lib*a -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 6582354 Jul 12 22:56 libslatec.a -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 6555122 Jul 12 23:02 libslatec_p.a # It it possible that libslatac.a has debggingn symbols, and the profiling library does not? Or that the profiling library was compiled with a lower degree of optimization ? (many of the 'higher'-level optimizations cause _larger_, albeit faster, code to be generated) Any other differences in compilation flags? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: profiling library smaller than non-profiling, while it contains more symbols. Why?
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 23:52:18 +0100 From: Anton Shterenlikht me...@bristol.ac.uk Subject: Re: profiling library smaller than non-profiling, while it contains more symbols. Why? Also, the library compiled on amd64 has lots more symbols than if compiled on ia64. This is _not_ unexpected with different processor architectures, and thus different instruction sets. Speculation: the values lfor the .LC* variables look like bit-masks -- it may be that ia64 has opcodes that allow immediate operannds, obviating the need for a 'data' consntat in memory. Something in the source causes different processor-specific code to be generated -- one processor uses 'data' constants, the other doesn't. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
