From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19790 invoked by alias); 18 Jan 2004 22:44:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 19778 invoked from network); 18 Jan 2004 22:44:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nondot.org) (128.174.245.159) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Jan 2004 22:44:24 -0000 Received: by nondot.org (Postfix, from userid 501) id A666A17C035; Sun, 18 Jan 2004 18:03:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nondot.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BE2F24C1F2; Sun, 18 Jan 2004 17:03:31 -0600 (CST) Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 22:44:00 -0000 From: Chris Lattner To: "Joseph S. Myers" Cc: Jan Hubicka , Richard Henderson , "Kaveh R. Ghazi" , , Subject: Re: Can we speed up the gcc_target structure? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg01209.txt.bz2 On Sun, 18 Jan 2004, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Sun, 18 Jan 2004, Jan Hubicka wrote: > > > I suppose this is mostly equivalent to what LLVM have except for the > > fact that list of symbols with external linkage is boundled in the > > source itself, instead of being in separate file. > > Do you have any experience with the separate file having considerable > > benefits? > > If you could generate the list from a GNU linker script, you could take > advantage of such a script in any library hiding internal functions that > way. The obvious example is glibc but I don't know to what extent the > functions written in assembler would inhibit such optimisations. Exactly. Also, libstd++ is a great example of a library with a number of internal symbols, but which is disciplined enough to have a firm grasp of what is being exported. -Chris -- http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/ http://www.nondot.org/~sabre/Projects/