On Tue, 25 Apr 2006, Lubos Lunak wrote: > > Note that even moving from .data to .rodata is desirable anyway, > > even if it doesn't result in reduced memory consumption, it does > > result in reduced relocations which is good. > > The question is if those few relocations are worth the effort.
What I typically do when looking at a library is: 1) run: size .libs/*.o 2) see which object files are having exceptionally higher .data sizes 3) run: objdump -Ct .libs/suspect.o | grep [.]data 4) check the code to see what the main contenders are 5) if it's obvious to fix them, do 6) otherwise if it's a table of like 100 or more entries, seek other ways to fix it, ... The gucharmap oddity that was recently pointed out for example is a good example of what is worth fixing. It's tables containing various strings holding textual data of each Unicode character, like annotations, etc. That can use a simple big-string + offsets-into scheme, but I'm holding on that as I'm going to rewrite the Unicode Character Database stuff anyway. Cheers, --behdad http://behdad.org/ "Commandment Three says Do Not Kill, Amendment Two says Blood Will Spill" -- Dan Bern, "New American Language" _______________________________________________ Performance-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/performance-list
