[PATCH] Speed up ld by about 5 times on Windows.

[Sonal Santan]

Many Thanks to Brian for his suggestions on how to improve my Patch.

I have attached an updated patch for ldlang.c (against revision 1.226). 
I have tried to follow GNU coding standards in my changes. Please review 
my changes.

The ChangeLog contents are below.

2006-06-21  Sonal Santan  <sonal.santan@xilinx.com>

    * ldlang.c (walk_wild_section_specs1_wild1): Use a Binary
    Search Tree to sort sections by name.
    (lang_section_bst_type): New typedef.
    (analyze_walk_wild_section_handler): Initialize handler_data with
    NULL.
    (wild): Choose output_section_callback_fast as callback method
    for sorting by name.
    (wild_sort_fast, output_section_callback_fast,
    output_section_callback_tree_to_list,): New functions.

Sonal

Brian Dessent wrote:
>
> Sonal Santan wrote:
>
> > I have a PATCH for speeding up GNU ld for PE-COFF by about 5 times. I
> > had posted this patch last week to binutils mailing list, but saw no
> > response. Should I be posting this to MinGW mailing list instead?
>
> No, you posted to the right place.  I can't speak for Mingw but I don't
> think they are interested in maintaining local patches, and besides,
> mingw is not the only PE/COFF target.
>
> Sometimes it just takes a while for patches to be reviewed.  However,
> you can speed this process along by reformatting your changes according
> to the GCS: <http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/standards.html>.  For
> example, multi-line comments like this:
>
> + /*
> +  * Build a Binary Search Tree to sort sections, unlike insertion sort
> +  * used in wild_sort(). BST is considerably faster if the number of
> +  * of sections are large.
> +  */
>
> should be written as:
>
> /* Build a Binary Search Tree to sort sections, unlike insertion sort
>    used in wild_sort(). BST is considerably faster if the number of
>    of sections are large.  */
>
> Note the two spaces at the end.  Braces should go on a line by
> themselves, so things like this:
>
> +   if (tree->left) {
> +     output_section_callback_tree_to_list(ptr, tree->left, output);
> +   }
>
> should be written as
>
>   if (tree->left)
>     {
>       output_section_callback_tree_to_list (ptr, tree->left, output);
>     }
>
> Although for single line blocks you can skip the braces entirely.  There
> should be no space after * in a declaration, but always a space before (
> in a function call, and after a cast, so:
>
> char *x = (cast *) foo (bar);
>
> not
>
> char * x = (cast *)foo(bar);
>
> You included your patch inline and some lines were wrapped, which means
> it will not apply without a great deal of cleanup work.  Therefore you
> should always send your patch as an attachment, not inline.
>
> You also should supply a ChangeLog that follows the GCS.  But do not
> include changes to the ChangeLog in the patch (as the ChangeLog file is
> very likely to change often), instead just include the ChangeLog entry
> as plaintext in your message.
>
> These things may seem like minor nits, but if a strict coding style was
> not enforced the code would quickly turn into a jumbled mess, so this is
> required before your patch can be considered.  If you resumbit a patch
> that follows the GCS with a ChangeLog your chances of a speedy review
> are much increased.
>
> Brian
>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ldlang.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 6174 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/attachments/20060622/ccef71f7/attachment.bin>