[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Skipping unexec via a big .elc file
From: |
Ken Raeburn |
Subject: |
Re: Skipping unexec via a big .elc file |
Date: |
Mon, 12 Dec 2016 12:25:06 -0500 |
> On Dec 11, 2016, at 14:18, Richard Stallman <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
>
>> * Larger obarray. After startup, my Linux/GNU/X11 build has over
>> * 15k symbols, and my Mac build has over 21k. The old obarray
>> * size of 1511 meant average chain lengths of over 10 and 14.
>> * Shorter chains mean less time spent in oblookup. And extra
>> * slots are cheap.
>
> This may be a good idea, but it has nothing to do with any particular
> method of startup or dumping. So how about doing it unconditionally?
A few of the changes on this branch would probably improve speed at least a
tiny bit regardless of the startup method. This one also has the advantage of
being a trivial change with, as far as I can see, no down side, so, yeah….
Ken
- Re: Skipping unexec via a big .elc file, Ken Raeburn, 2016/12/11
- Re: Skipping unexec via a big .elc file, Richard Stallman, 2016/12/11
- Re: Skipping unexec via a big .elc file,
Ken Raeburn <=
- Re: Skipping unexec via a big .elc file, Ken Brown, 2016/12/13
- Re: Skipping unexec via a big .elc file, Ken Raeburn, 2016/12/14
- Re: Skipping unexec via a big .elc file, Lars Ingebrigtsen, 2016/12/14
- Re: Skipping unexec via a big .elc file, Ken Raeburn, 2016/12/15
- Re: Skipping unexec via a big .elc file, Ken Raeburn, 2016/12/15
- Re: Skipping unexec via a big .elc file, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/12/15
- Re: Skipping unexec via a big .elc file, Clément Pit--Claudel, 2016/12/15