Re: Large, modular C++ application performance ...

["Giovanni Bajo" <rasky@develer.com>]

michael meeks <michael.meeks@novell.com> wrote:

> I've been doing a little thinking about how to improve OO.o startup
> performance recently; and - well, relocation processing happens to be
> the single, biggest thing that most tools flag.
>
> Anyhow - so I wrote up the problem, and a couple of potential
> solutions / extensions / workarounds, and - being of a generally
> clueless nature, was hoping to solicit instruction from those of a more
> enlightened disposition.
>
> All input much appreciated; no doubt my terminology is irritatingly up
> the creek, hopefully the sentiment will win through.
>
> http://go-oo.org/~michael/OOoStartup.pdf
>
> Two solutions are proposed - there are almost certainly more that I'm
> not thinking of. I'm interested in people's views as to which approach
> is best. So far the constructor hook approach seems to be the path of
> least resistance.


I'm slow, but I can't understand why a careful design of the interfaces of
the dynamic libraries, together with the new -fvisibility flags, should not
be sufficient. It worked well in other scenarios
(http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Visibility).

IMHO, it's unreasonable to break the C++ ABI for 1 second of warm time
startup.
-- 
Giovanni Bajo