On Jul 7, 2009, at 1:34 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Tuesday 07 July 2009 12:30:18 Kumar Gala wrote:
On Jul 7, 2009, at 11:27 AM, Kumar Gala wrote:
Signed-off-by: Kumar Gala galak@kernel.crashing.org
This is an attempt at using dlmalloc v2.8.4. Its a work in progress, but wanted to post to see what peoples feelings are on updating. This version resolves all the various warnings we see w/gcc4.4 and the older version of dlmalloc however the trade of is the code size has increased.
I still need to see if we need to hand relocate the global structs or not.
This diff is just of malloc.h to see how things are cfg, and of dmalloc.src vs dmalloc.c to see the changes to it.
Here are some size #'s
[galak@blarg u-boot-85xx]$ size u-boot text data bss dec hex filename 392040 50536 41957 484533 764b5 u-boot 397660 49500 42397 489557 77855 u-boot (new dlmalloc)
[galak@blarg u-boot-85xx]$ size common/dlmalloc.o text data bss dec hex filename 4768 1056 56 5880 16f8 common/dlmalloc.o 10390 16 492 10898 2a92 common/dlmalloc.o (new dlmalloc)
to say it has increased is an understatement. i cant imagine the upstream code increasing that much. perhaps we had trimmed/customized the implementation so as to shrink it ?
Nope, the older version is just smaller:
6632 1080 68 7780 1e64 malloc-2.6.6.o 7530 24 888 8442 20fa malloc-2.7.2.o 14386 20 492 14898 3a32 malloc-2.8.4.o
old dlmalloc: [galak@blarg u-boot-85xx]$ nm --size-sort common/dlmalloc.o
use the bloatcheck script to do a human readable compare between the two objects. you can find it in the linux kernel.
Where, do you mean bloat-o-meter?
- k