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 <ga...@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 > > [ga...@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) > > [ga...@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 ? > old dlmalloc: > [ga...@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. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
