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

[michael meeks <michael.meeks@novell.com>]

On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 06:57 -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> Maitaining a C++ linker map isn't easy. I think gcc should help out
> here.

	What do you suggest ? - something separate from the visibility markup ?
perhaps what I'm suggesting is some horribly mis-use of that. Clearly
adding a new visibility attribute that would bind that symbol
internally, yet export it would be a simple approach; did you have a
better idea ? and/or suggestions for a name ? - or is this a total
non-starter for some other reason ?

> > 	That would suit our needs beautifully - if, when used to annotate a
> > class, it would allow the various typeinfo / vague-linkage pieces
> > through as 'default'. Is it a realistic suggestion ? / if so, am happy
> > to knock up a patch.
> > 
> > 	[ and of course, this is only 1/2 the problem - the other half isn't
> > much helped by visibility markup as previously discussed ;-]
>
> Why not? If you know a symbol in DSO won't be overridden by others,
> you can resolve it locally via a linker map.

	Sure - the other (more than) 1/2 of the performance problem comes from
named relocations to symbols external to the DSO.

	Thanks,

		Michael.

-- 
 michael.meeks@novell.com  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot