This is the mail archive of the crossgcc@sourceware.org mailing list for the crossgcc project.
See the CrossGCC FAQ for lots more information.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
Bryan, all, Am 21.12.2010 um 17:40 schrieb Bryan Hundven: > On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 2:58 AM, Titus von Boxberg <titus@v9g.de> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> does anybody know why linking for ARM cpus >> is much slower than for others? >> I'm using tool chains for ELF/Linux/glibc >> for X86, PowerPC and ARM. >> binutils is of version 2.20 > > Have you tried 2.20.1 or 2.21? > I'd say if the problem still exists there, try posting something to: > http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/ > > I've been building for the same architectures (ppc for e500, arm for > xscale). Granted I've been more concerned with functionality over > compile time, but next time I build, I will try comparing build times. Yes, that's sensible. But if only linking a single not overly complex application takes 200s I think also you would be concerned with build times ;-) I gathered some more statistics today. - the factor between ARM and other archs varies wildly between 2 and 25. I also got no clue for the reason of the variation of the factor ARM<->other archs for different applications. - gold of 2.20 does not work, at least for ARM. With a build of HEAD of binutils from today, - ld's linking time for the 200s-app from above is reduced to approx 12 s - gold seems to work, and reduces the linking time further by a factor of about 4 - HEAD-ARM-ld's linking time is still about factor 2 longer than that of ld-2.20 for the other archs when measured with the application that took 200s. A comparison of gold for the architectures would be next. Though with binutils-HEAD the problem is not as dramatic as before, I still would be interested to know the reason. Factor of 25 sounds like a good CS classroom example. > >> Linking the same software is about 4 times slower >> for ARM than for the other CPUs. >> What might be the reason? > > If you could give an example of a package you are building, I will > build the same package and compare build times. Hopefully then we can > start to dig into the problem. As a test apart from my company's own software, I used the http server example of asio today, and got a factor of 2 between ARM and other archs (though linking time is quite short in total: 0.21s user for PPC/X86 and 0.45 s user for ARM on a 2GHz Core 2 Duo Mac using binutils-2.20). Regards Titus -- For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |