On Jul 7, 2009, at 1:34 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 July 2009 12:30:18 Kumar Gala wrote:
>> On Jul 7, 2009, at 11:27 AM, Kumar Gala wrote:
>>> Signed-off-by: Kumar Gala <ga...@kernel.crashing.org>
>>> ---
>>> This is an attempt at using dlmalloc v2.8.4. Its a work in
>>> progress, but
>>> wanted to post to see what peoples feelings are on updating. This
>>> version
>>> resolves all the various warnings we see w/gcc4.4 and the older
>>> version of
>>> dlmalloc however the trade of is the code size has increased.
>>>
>>> I still need to see if we need to hand relocate the global structs
>>> or not.
>>>
>>> This diff is just of malloc.h to see how things are cfg, and of
>>> dmalloc.src vs dmalloc.c to see the changes to it.
>>
>> Here are some size #'s
>>
>> [ga...@blarg u-boot-85xx]$ size u-boot
>> text data bss dec hex filename
>> 392040 50536 41957 484533 764b5 u-boot
>> 397660 49500 42397 489557 77855 u-boot (new dlmalloc)
>>
>> [ga...@blarg u-boot-85xx]$ size common/dlmalloc.o
>> text data bss dec hex filename
>> 4768 1056 56 5880 16f8 common/dlmalloc.o
>> 10390 16 492 10898 2a92 common/dlmalloc.o (new
>> dlmalloc)
>
> to say it has increased is an understatement. i cant imagine the
> upstream
> code increasing that much. perhaps we had trimmed/customized the
> implementation so as to shrink it ?
Nope, the older version is just smaller:
6632 1080 68 7780 1e64 malloc-2.6.6.o
7530 24 888 8442 20fa malloc-2.7.2.o
14386 20 492 14898 3a32 malloc-2.8.4.o
>> old dlmalloc:
>> [ga...@blarg u-boot-85xx]$ nm --size-sort common/dlmalloc.o
>
> use the bloatcheck script to do a human readable compare between the
> two
> objects. you can find it in the linux kernel.
Where, do you mean bloat-o-meter?
- k
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
