Re: "build-id" changes break sparc64

[Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>]

On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 07:56:48PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 08:00:48PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 12:49:36PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 06:55:59PM +0930, Alan Modra wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 10:14:35AM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > > > > But I would still like to hear from Alan what the benefits are.
> > > > 
> > > > See http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2004-10/msg00178.html
> > > 
> > > What does _not_ doing intermediates do to memory footprint of ld(1)
> > > and time spent in there?
> > 
> > x86_64 defconfig
> > 
> > rm vmlinux*; time make vmlinux
> > 
> > Vanilla tree: ~7,7 sec
> > With single shot ld (Roland's patch): 8,3 secs
> > 
> > So as expected slower. As we link twice the cost is ~0,3 sec 
> > for a x86_64 defconfig link on my box.
> 
> defconfig is not too interesting, but anyway - how much memory does it
> take in process?  And, obviously, what kind of box it is?
>  
> > So it should be beneficial to do it and Alan's link did not really
> > convince me for the kernel usage.
> > Al - do you have any input there?
> 
> Depends.  If more-or-less allmodconfig doesn't kick everything else out
> of cache and doesn't end up creating fsckloads of seeks...
> 
> Actually, if you want a killer, see what happens when building with debug
> info...

Shouldn't "allyesconfig" be the worst case?

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed