Hello, > >> Can you be specific about where the time is being spent? Loading libraries > >> can be expensive no matter what. Is it possible that the delay is just more > >> noticable to you because rather than taking the hit at startup (the dynamic > >> loader links the libraries before calling main()) the load happens during > >> execution of your program where it's more apparent? > > > I'm using a low power ppc cpu and it spends 6seconds in > > XPCOMGlueStartup. With FF2 libs , my web page comes up in 13s, with > > xulrunner-1.9 my web page comes up in 22s. > > Did your startup time change? > > That is, did loading gecko always cost 9 seconds, but we've moved it to a > different place, or is this a completely new 9 second delay?
This is a completely new 9 seconds delay. > > Reading this page > >http://developer.mozilla.org/en/XPCOM_Glue > > I would have think that there was a way to start my browser quicker > > without having to call XPCOMGlueStartup/GTKEmbedGlueStartup. It was > > what I understood according to the following text: > > "Embedding code which wishes to use only frozen symbols and cannot > > tolerate a load-time dependency on xpcom.dll should #define XPCOM_GLUE > > 1 while compiling, and link against xpcomglue.lib. It should not link > > against xpcomglue_s.lib or xpcom.lib." > > Your understanding is incorrect. We *always* have to load XPCOM. The > difference is how we load it: > > Dependent glue: you link directly against libxpcom.so (this is called a > load-time dependency). The dynamic linker does the loading for you at > startup time. Functions are called directly. > > Embedding glue: you don't link directly against libxpcom.so. Instead, you > programmatically load libxpcom.so and populate the functions you want to use > as function pointers (using XPCOMGlueStartup and GTKEmbedGlueStartup). I solved the sigsegv problem I get using dependent glue. It was not related to xulrunner. So here's the point I've reached: When I use embedding glue, a small local html file comes up in 22s, 7 seconds is spent in XPCOMGlueStartup. When I use Dependent glue, the same local html file comes up in 15s seconds. I do not call XPCOMGlueStartup. > You're probably going to need to generate some profiles of the time spent in > XPCOMGlueStartup. Providing more details about your setup would also help, > for instance: > > * What OS? Linux on ppc hardware, based on Denx 4.1 ( fedora 3-7 rpms based), glibc 2.3.5, kernel 2.6.25 > * What library model (ELF, Mach-O, etc) ELF > * What compiler, and what version? Does that compiler support > hidden-visibility pragmas correctly? I have to use gcc 4.0, so I remove hidden-visibility pragmas. > Proper support for ELF hidden-visibility pragmas was fixed in GCC 4.2... > using and older version of GCC will definitely cause increased startup time > because the dynamic linker will have to perform thousands of relocations > when you load the gecko libraries. I think you're indeed ;-) Would the use of gcc 4.2 improve start-up time in a significant way ? both in dependent and embedding glue ? Thanks for your time. Patrice _______________________________________________ dev-embedding mailing list dev-embedding@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-embedding
