On 08/05/2016 07:05 PM, ⚛ wrote: > On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 3:37 AM, Jan Vesely <jan.ves...@rutgers.edu> wrote: >> On Sat, 2016-08-06 at 02:42 +0200, Jan Ziak wrote: >>> Mesa source code prior to this patch uses both RTLD_NOW and >>> RTLD_LAZY. >>> This patch removes all RTLD_NOW in favor of RTLD_LAZY. >>> >>> In comparison to early binding, lazy binding reduces CPU instruction >>> count >>> of small GL apps (e.g: glxinfo) by 6 million instructions. >>> Larger apps won't notice the difference. >> >> this is IMO micro-optimization in the wrong place. RTLD_NOW also >> guarantees that symbols were successfully resolved. Changing it to lazy >> may hide bugs by deferring failure to future point in the execution. > > Question 1: Are you suggesting to replace current RTLD_LAZY in all > locations with RTLD_NOW? > > Question 2: Exists there a reason for _not_ linking radeonsi_dri.so, > swrastg_dri.so, etc, directly to Mesa's libGL.so? The Gallium > *_dri.so libraries are the same inode on the filesystem.
This is an intentional feature. This allows libGL and *_dri.so to be installed from different versions. It also allows the possibility for a *_dri.so from outside the Mesa source tree. > Question 3: Isn't the current status quo (i.e: not linking > radeonsi_dri.so directly to libGL.so) also a micro-optimization that > can hide certain bugs? > > Question 4: Is it planned for *_dri.so belonging to Gallium/DRI _not_ > to be mapped to the same inode on the filesystem in the future? If > there is no such plan, what was the original point of having multiple > _dri.so files mapped to the same inode? > > Thanks. > _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
