Re: Excessive exception size cost ...

2012-04-02 Thread Michael Stahl
On 27/03/12 13:53, Caolán McNamara wrote: > On Thu, 2012-03-08 at 17:05 +, Michael Meeks wrote: >> It is also a markedly higher proportion than mozilla: > > Maybe large bits of mozilla are compiled without exceptions ?, > historically at least given https://developer.mozilla.org/en/C > +

Re: Excessive exception size cost ...

2012-03-27 Thread Stephan Bergmann
On 03/27/2012 04:21 PM, Michael Meeks wrote: Well, we force page them in as we launch LibreOffice, and then we go Yeah, the pagein hack. More a testimony that we are doing something wrong here -- trying to outsmart the OS instead of fixing it --, than a legitimate critique on the exc

Re: Excessive exception size cost ...

2012-03-27 Thread Caolán McNamara
On Tue, 2012-03-27 at 15:21 +0100, Michael Meeks wrote: > I assume you're compiling -Os ? (if so, it's another nail in the x86_64 > story I guess). The defaults for LibO are -Os for ia32 and -O2 for ia64 (and most other gcc targets), IIRC we fell over and died with -Os back in the early days of th

Re: Excessive exception size cost ...

2012-03-27 Thread Noel Grandin
On 2012-03-27 16:21, Michael Meeks wrote: Well, we force page them in as we launch LibreOffice, and then we go throwing a handful of random non-exceptional UNO exceptions as we start up, so ... not sure :-) Perhaps we can use linker magic to move those tables to the end of the executable i

Re: Excessive exception size cost ...

2012-03-27 Thread Michael Meeks
Hi there, First - thanks for spending the time to generate some new data to look at :-) it's really interesting: On Tue, 2012-03-27 at 12:53 +0100, Caolán McNamara wrote: > So, here's my numbers. > Firstly x86_64 product-mode, no symbols, code-as-it-is-in-master > > code14046

Re: Excessive exception size cost ...

2012-03-27 Thread Caolán McNamara
On Thu, 2012-03-08 at 17:05 +, Michael Meeks wrote: > So - because of the expert skepticism of my estimate of where the > wasteage is: ie. exception unwind tables, I re-ran my relocstats.pl tool > (which I've checked in here): So, here's my numbers. Firstly x86_64 product-mode, no symbo

Re: Excessive exception size cost ...

2012-03-13 Thread Michael Meeks
Hi Noel, On Tue, 2012-03-13 at 08:48 +0200, Noel Grandin wrote: > Just some interesting numbers for this debate. :-) > Doing some rough analysis on master: > > [1] total number of throw calls 108381 It's really rather smaller than this; a better proxy is: $ git grep 'throw

Re: Excessive exception size cost ...

2012-03-13 Thread Noel Grandin
I guess so, like I said, very rough numbers. Happy to re-run the analysis if you can suggest a better approach. On 2012-03-13 09:19, Stephan Bergmann wrote: On 03/13/2012 07:48 AM, Noel Grandin wrote: [1] total number of throw calls 108381 [1] git grep throw | wc -l Then this number also inc

Re: Excessive exception size cost ...

2012-03-13 Thread Stephan Bergmann
On 03/13/2012 07:48 AM, Noel Grandin wrote: [1] total number of throw calls 108381 [1] git grep throw | wc -l Then this number also includes all the exception specifications in function declarations/definitions? Stephan ___ LibreOffice mailing lis

Re: Excessive exception size cost ...

2012-03-12 Thread Noel Grandin
Just some interesting numbers for this debate. Doing some rough analysis on master: [1] total number of throw calls 108381 [2] total no. of catch blocks 3984 re-throws the same exception 319 throws different exception433 calls generic handler1

Re: Excessive exception size cost ...

2012-03-12 Thread Stephan Bergmann
On 03/08/2012 06:05 PM, Michael Meeks wrote: So - there is the 1.9% size saving ~3.3Mb saved (which is a lower bound - we can do better by being more complete). Yes, exceptions do come at a cost (in object size). As I already said, if people consider this cost substantial in the case