search for: 997m

...titions 10 GIG, 2 GIG swap and 50 GIG). While on that screen and moving the mouse it lagged big time and could not keep up. Anyway just reporting that so far the 32 bit install and the 64 bit install is Exactly the same. So I am expecting that after install my cpu speed will still be reported LOW (997M vs a 2.4GiG for a 4000+ cpu). Any experiences out there with the 64 bit amd and maximizing speed when plugged in whould be appreciated. Jerry

...ilesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on > /dev/sda5 9.9G 4.8G 4.6G 52% / > /dev/sda3 100M 4.5M 96M 5% /boot/efi > /dev/sda10 4.9G 214M 4.4G 5% /home > /dev/sda4 20G 34M 19G 1% /opt > none 997M 0 997M 0% /dev/shm > /dev/sda9 4.9G 33M 4.6G 1% /tmp > /dev/sda6 15G 2.0G 12G 15% /usr > /dev/sda8 9.7G 242M 8.9G 3% /usr/local > /dev/sda7 15G 8.1G 5.7G 59% /var > /dev/cdrom 2.6G 2.6G 0 100% /m...

...any case I'd guess. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> I see. FWIW, Comparison splitdwarf+dwp and DWARFLinker from lld: >>>> >>>> 1. split-dwarf+llvm-dwp = linking time for clang 6 sec, >>>> generating time for .dwp 53 sec, clang=997M clang.dwp=1.1G. >>> FWIW, llvm-dwp is not very well optimized (which is to say: it is not >>> optimized), binutils dwp might be a better comparison (& even that >>> doesn't have the parallelism & some potential further memory savings >>> that lld has...

...> >>>>>>> >>>>>> I see. FWIW, Comparison splitdwarf+dwp and DWARFLinker from lld: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. split-dwarf+llvm-dwp = linking time for clang 6 sec, >>>>>> generating time for .dwp 53 sec, clang=997M clang.dwp=1.1G. >>>>> FWIW, llvm-dwp is not very well optimized (which is to say: it is not >>>>> optimized), binutils dwp might be a better comparison (& even that >>>>> doesn't have the parallelism & some potential further memory savings &g...

...t;>>>>> I see. FWIW, Comparison splitdwarf+dwp and DWARFLinker from > lld: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 1. split-dwarf+llvm-dwp = linking time for clang 6 sec, > >>>>>>       generating time for .dwp 53 sec, clang=997M > clang.dwp=1.1G. > >>>>> FWIW, llvm-dwp is not very well optimized (which is to say: > it is not > >>>>> optimized), binutils dwp might be a better comparison (& > even that > >>>>> doesn't have the para...

...gt;>>>> I see. FWIW, Comparison splitdwarf+dwp and DWARFLinker from lld: >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> 1. split-dwarf+llvm-dwp = linking time for clang 6 sec, >>> >>>>>> generating time for .dwp 53 sec, clang=997M clang.dwp=1.1G. >>> >>>>> FWIW, llvm-dwp is not very well optimized (which is to say: it is >>> not >>> >>>>> optimized), binutils dwp might be a better comparison (& even that >>> >>>>> doesn't have the parall...

...l" - not a major pain point in >> >any case I'd guess. >> > >>> >> I see. FWIW, Comparison splitdwarf+dwp and DWARFLinker from lld: >> >> 1. split-dwarf+llvm-dwp = linking time for clang 6 sec, >> generating time for .dwp 53 sec, clang=997M clang.dwp=1.1G. >FWIW, llvm-dwp is not very well optimized (which is to say: it is not >optimized), binutils dwp might be a better comparison (& even that >doesn't have the parallelism & some potential further memory savings >that lld has that we could take advantage of in...

...gt;> I see. FWIW, Comparison splitdwarf+dwp and DWARFLinker from lld: >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> 1. split-dwarf+llvm-dwp = linking time for clang 6 sec, >>>> >>>>>> generating time for .dwp 53 sec, clang=997M clang.dwp=1.1G. >>>> >>>>> FWIW, llvm-dwp is not very well optimized (which is to say: it is not >>>> >>>>> optimized), binutils dwp might be a better comparison (& even that >>>> >>>>> doesn't have the paralle...

...releases - well, >maybe their situation is more "neutral" - not a major pain point in >any case I'd guess. > I see. FWIW, Comparison splitdwarf+dwp and DWARFLinker from lld: 1. split-dwarf+llvm-dwp = linking time for clang 6 sec, generating time for .dwp 53 sec, clang=997M clang.dwp=1.1G. 2. DWARFLinker from lld = linking time for clang 72 sec, clang=760M. >> Thus if they would use this LLD feature in its current state >> - they would still receive benefits. >> >> Speaking of performance results - LLD is a multi-thread linker; >> it ha...

>> >> >Alexey> Probably we could try to make DWARF easy to parsing, trimming, rewriting so that full DWARF >> >> >Alexey> parsing solution would not take too much time? >> >> >Alexey> >> >> >Alexey> f.e. -debug-types-section solution uses COMDAT sections to split and deduplicate types. >> >> >Alexey> That