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:
iling 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
-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/free
> Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 23:52:18 +0100
> From: Anton Shterenlikht
> 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
> 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
> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Subject: 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:
>
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--
