From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20590 invoked by alias); 28 Aug 2006 15:56:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 20580 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Aug 2006 15:56:06 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp109.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com (HELO smtp109.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com) (68.142.198.208) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with SMTP; Mon, 28 Aug 2006 15:56:00 +0000 Received: (qmail 98353 invoked from network); 28 Aug 2006 15:55:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lucon.org) (hjjean@sbcglobal.net@71.146.115.163 with login) by smtp109.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Aug 2006 15:55:58 -0000 Received: by lucon.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5250463F38; Mon, 28 Aug 2006 08:55:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 01:32:00 -0000 From: "H. J. Lu" To: "Talbot, George" Cc: Alan Modra , nicos@maunakeatech.com, binutils@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Re: Long linking time Message-ID: <20060828155557.GA6119@lucon.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-08/txt/msg00303.txt.bz2 On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 11:03:29AM -0400, Talbot, George wrote: > I think you might want to take a look at how those patches are getting > applied or something, because when I RPM install the binary that you > have in there for 2.17.50.0.3, the performance of ld is abysmal. If I > build it myself, with the hand-applied patch, it's pretty fast. > I double checked. The patch is applied in the 2.17.50.0.3 binary rpms. Have you checked the correct linker was used? H.J.