[Bug ld/19739] ld.bfd performance regression

2016-03-04 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19739 --- Comment #15 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org --- The binutils-2_26-branch branch has been updated by H.J. Lu : https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=cb09f0f53e66991e50a2482f0d79492c824d3bda commit cb09f0f53e66991e5

[Bug ld/19739] ld.bfd performance regression

2016-03-04 Thread hjl.tools at gmail dot com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19739 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug ld/19739] ld.bfd performance regression

2016-03-02 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19739 --- Comment #14 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org --- The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu : https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=523f4c9234439fd6ccc0dd2c3b387331dd64c54b commit 523f4c9234439fd6ccc0dd2c3b38733

[Bug ld/19739] ld.bfd performance regression

2016-03-01 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19739 --- Comment #13 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org --- The master branch has been updated by H.J. Lu : https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=077fcd6a3b5729044acce83f77ebedd3adbadab0 commit 077fcd6a3b5729044acce83f77ebedd

[Bug ld/19739] ld.bfd performance regression

2016-03-01 Thread jan.sm...@alcatel-lucent.com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19739 --- Comment #12 from Jan Smets --- Patch works, also on mips. Thanks -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org h

[Bug ld/19739] ld.bfd performance regression

2016-02-29 Thread amodra at gmail dot com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19739 --- Comment #11 from Alan Modra --- Ah, yes ld -r will get lots of orphans when linking -ffunction-sections objects, and my pr19162 fix is quite expensive. Patch approved, but please move the comment down to just before "place = NULL" rather

[Bug ld/19739] ld.bfd performance regression

2016-02-29 Thread hjl.tools at gmail dot com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19739 --- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Alan Modra from comment #9) > Why is place_orphan being called? ie. What section is missing from the > linker script? It is called on .text.* sections. We don't want to fold all .text.* sections

[Bug ld/19739] ld.bfd performance regression

2016-02-29 Thread amodra at gmail dot com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19739 Alan Modra changed: What|Removed |Added CC||amodra at gmail dot com --- Comment #9 f

[Bug ld/19739] ld.bfd performance regression

2016-02-29 Thread hjl.tools at gmail dot com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19739 --- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu --- Created attachment 9054 --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9054&action=edit A patch Please try this. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. __

[Bug ld/19739] ld.bfd performance regression

2016-02-28 Thread hjl.tools at gmail dot com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19739 --- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu --- (In reply to Jan Smets from comment #6) > What would be the easiets way to reproduce a testcase. > (without sending proprietary data - are there any tools to discard all data > from object files or something?)

[Bug ld/19739] ld.bfd performance regression

2016-02-28 Thread jan.sm...@alcatel-lucent.com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19739 --- Comment #6 from Jan Smets --- What would be the easiets way to reproduce a testcase. (without sending proprietary data - are there any tools to discard all data from object files or something?) -- You are receiving this mail because: You

[Bug ld/19739] ld.bfd performance regression

2016-02-28 Thread hjl.tools at gmail dot com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19739 H.J. Lu changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING --- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu --- Pl

[Bug ld/19739] ld.bfd performance regression

2016-02-28 Thread markus at trippelsdorf dot de
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19739 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com --

[Bug ld/19739] ld.bfd performance regression

2016-02-28 Thread jan.sm...@alcatel-lucent.com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19739 Jan Smets changed: What|Removed |Added Target|mips-wrs-vxworks|mips-wrs-vxworks,x86_64 Severit

[Bug ld/19739] ld.bfd performance regression

2016-02-27 Thread markus at trippelsdorf dot de
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19739 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added CC|markus at trippelsdorf dot de | -- You are receiving t

[Bug ld/19739] ld.bfd performance regression

2016-02-27 Thread jan.sm...@alcatel-lucent.com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19739 --- Comment #3 from Jan Smets --- I also tried the latest snapshot, so this is a different issue. Thanks. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ bug-binutil

[Bug ld/19739] ld.bfd performance regression

2016-02-27 Thread markus at trippelsdorf dot de
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19739 --- Comment #2 from Markus Trippelsdorf --- (In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #1) > There was a similar issue that got fixed recently: PR19542. > Can you try the current 2_26-branch? Ah, you're on mips. Please ignore my comment.

[Bug ld/19739] ld.bfd performance regression

2016-02-27 Thread markus at trippelsdorf dot de
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19739 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added CC||markus at trippelsdorf dot de -

[Bug ld/19739] ld.bfd performance regression

2016-02-27 Thread jan.sm...@alcatel-lucent.com
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19739 Jan Smets changed: What|Removed |Added Target||mips-wrs-vxworks -- You are receiving th