This is the mail archive of the
elfutils-devel@sourceware.org
mailing list for the elfutils project.
Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] elfutils: don't use dlopen() for libebl modules
- From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche at redhat dot com>
- To: Omar Sandoval <osandov at osandov dot com>
- Cc: elfutils-devel at sourceware dot org
- Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 17:33:42 -0400
- Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] elfutils: don't use dlopen() for libebl modules
- References: <cover.1562180756.git.osandov@fb.com>
Hi -
> [...]
> My understanding of the benefit of separate modules is that we don't
> need to link all backend modules into every elfutils binary. I did some
> measurements to that end:
>
> Dynamic backends (status quo):
> 44K ./libasm/libasm.so
> 380K ./libdw/libdw.so
> 120K ./libelf/libelf.so
> 56K ./src/objdump
>
> Static backends (after this series):
> 44K ./libasm/libasm.so
> 668K ./libdw/libdw.so
> 120K ./libelf/libelf.so
> 348K ./src/objdump
Assuming a dynamically linked objdump would be the same size as
before, and that the libebl-* contents would only bloat libdw.so,
and only by 300K, IMHO we should just go for it.
- FChE