Thomas Miedema wrote
It was all due to a missing -split-objs in Jeremy's 7.8 build.
For the record, this appears to have been a bug in the 7.8 build system, as
SplitObjs is supposed to be on by default. I only noticed when building
7.10, where the default was correct, and didn't understand why
-users-
| boun...@haskell.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy
| Sent: 05 April 2015 20:30
| To: glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
| Subject: Re: Binary bloat in 7.10
|
| Thomas Miedema wrote
| That suggestion was completely misguided. Compiling with `-split-objs`
| makes a library _grow_ in size
-haskell-users [mailto:glasgow-haskell-users-
| boun...@haskell.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy
| Sent: 05 April 2015 20:30
| To: glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
| Subject: Re: Binary bloat in 7.10
|
| Thomas Miedema wrote
| That suggestion was completely misguided. Compiling with `-split-objs
Thomas Miedema wrote
That suggestion was completely misguided. Compiling with `-split-objs`
makes a library _grow_ in size, but makes executables that link against it
_smaller_.
All these numbers are not far off from the ones you were getting. I think
you have been comparing a 7.8.4 build
Very strange. If I download Cabal from hackage and build it with 'cabal
build' the bloat disappears.
cabal build:
18M HSCabal-1.22.2.0-HWT8QvVfJLn2ubvobpycJY.o
21M libHSCabal-1.22.2.0-HWT8QvVfJLn2ubvobpycJY.a
/usr/local/lib/ghc-7.10.1:
23M HSCabal-1.22.2.0-HWT8QvVfJLn2ubvobpycJY.o
Jeremy,
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Thomas Miedema thomasmied...@gmail.com
wrote:
Maybe `split-objs` is not applied?
That suggestion was completely misguided. Compiling with `-split-objs`
makes a library _grow_ in size, but makes executables that link against it
_smaller_.
Size of
Great sleuthing!! Thanks for pinning down whats going on!
On Apr 2, 2015 8:48 PM, Thomas Miedema thomasmied...@gmail.com wrote:
Jeremy,
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Thomas Miedema thomasmied...@gmail.com
wrote:
Maybe `split-objs` is not applied?
That suggestion was completely
Maybe `split-objs` is not applied?
* Stray `SplitObjs = NO` in your build.mk?
* You're on an old OS X with XCode 3.2?
* Build system bug?
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Jeremy volderm...@hotmail.com wrote:
Very strange. If I download Cabal from hackage and build it with 'cabal
build' the
Do you have profiling enabled locally?
On Apr 2, 2015 5:19 AM, Jeremy volderm...@hotmail.com wrote:
Very strange. If I download Cabal from hackage and build it with 'cabal
build' the bloat disappears.
cabal build:
18M HSCabal-1.22.2.0-HWT8QvVfJLn2ubvobpycJY.o
21M
Woops, never mind.
On Apr 2, 2015 7:53 AM, Carter Schonwald carter.schonw...@gmail.com
wrote:
Do you have profiling enabled locally?
On Apr 2, 2015 5:19 AM, Jeremy volderm...@hotmail.com wrote:
Very strange. If I download Cabal from hackage and build it with 'cabal
build' the bloat
Building with https://downloads.haskell.org/~ghc/7.10.1/ghc-7.10.1-src.tar.xz
--
View this message in context:
http://haskell.1045720.n5.nabble.com/Binary-bloat-in-7-10-tp5768067p5768156.html
Sent from the Haskell - Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list archive at
Nabble.com.
Thomas Miedema wrote:
Maybe `split-objs` is not applied?
* Stray `SplitObjs = NO` in your build.mk?
Tried adding SplitObjs = YES, didn't help
* You're on an old OS X with XCode 3.2?
Debian Jessie
--
View this message in context:
Roman Cheplyaka-2 wrote
I'm not denying (or confirming) your claim, but it would look more
legitimate if you compared the same version of Cabal compiled with
different versions of GHC.
At least some of this bloat could be because Cabal simply gained more
code.
Tricky to test that because
On 01/04/15 12:30, Jeremy wrote:
Why do the 7.10 libraries take up so much more space than 7.8? For example,
using the same build options and strip --strip-unneeded, 7.8 leaves me with
15M libHSCabal-1.18.1.5.a
17M HSCabal-1.18.1.5.o
whereas 7.10 balloons to
23M
7.10.1 should IIRC support some kind of DWARF debugging information and
IIRC it was mentioned and decided on ghc devel that the libraries will
ship with some DWARF to easy debugging
-- but takes me lightly on it and verify if this is the case since I may
be completely off and this may apply
It's not just binaries, even hi files have ballooned. (I should note that
(stripped) executables appear to be unaffected.)
--
View this message in context:
http://haskell.1045720.n5.nabble.com/Binary-bloat-in-7-10-tp5768067p5768072.html
Sent from the Haskell - Glasgow-haskell-users mailing
Karel Gardas wrote
7.10.1 should IIRC support some kind of DWARF debugging information and
IIRC it was mentioned and decided on ghc devel that the libraries will
ship with some DWARF to easy debugging
-- but takes me lightly on it and verify if this is the case since I may
be completely
Roman Cheplyaka-2 wrote
I'm not denying (or confirming) your claim, but it would look more
legitimate if you compared the same version of Cabal compiled with
different versions of GHC.
At least some of this bloat could be because Cabal simply gained more
code.
I was going to prove you
How much of this might be attributable to longer linker symbol names? Ghc
7.10 object code does have larger symbols! Is there a way to easily
tabulate that?
On Apr 1, 2015 9:40 AM, Jeremy volderm...@hotmail.com wrote:
Roman Cheplyaka-2 wrote
I'm not denying (or confirming) your claim, but it
Carter Schonwald wrote
How much of this might be attributable to longer linker symbol names? Ghc
7.10 object code does have larger symbols! Is there a way to easily
tabulate that?
That would explain why the hi files have also increased many-fold. Is there
any way to avoid the larger symbols?
On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 02:30:49AM -0700, Jeremy wrote:
Why do the 7.10 libraries take up so much more space than 7.8? For example,
using the same build options and strip --strip-unneeded, 7.8 leaves me with
That would be some kind of harsh april 1st joke, if everything compiled
at that day
Yes, this does seem like a potential culprit, although
we did do some measurements and I didn't think it was too bad.
Maybe we were wrong!
Edward
Excerpts from Jeremy's message of 2015-04-01 07:26:55 -0700:
Carter Schonwald wrote
How much of this might be attributable to longer linker symbol
Mind you I'm just trying to come up with theories we can test, I'm not
assigning blame. :)
I'm not sure how to do the apples to apples comparison, but it sounds like
some sleuthing Is In order.
I dont have a 7.10 setup yet, but if someone can put a tarballed dist build
folder for a 7.10 and the
23 matches
Mail list logo
