On Jul 7, 2009, at 2:16 PM, T Ziomek wrote: > On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 02:34:32PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> On Tuesday 07 July 2009 12:30:18 Kumar Gala wrote: >>> 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. > > And/or, 'pahole' (Poke-a-hole) or some of the other "7 Dwarves" tools > might help shed light on the differences. > > LWN article <http://lwn.net/Articles/335942/> (how I heard about them) > GIT <http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/acme/pahole.git> > OLS '07 paper <http://oops.ghostprotocols.net:81/acme/7dwarves.pdf> or > <http://ols.fedoraproject.org/OLS/Reprints-2007/melo-Reprint.pdf>
Those would help if the data structs had gotten bigger. In this case the code itself is just larger. - k _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
