11–20 of 28 posts
Can anyone summarize differences with previous work like https://cseweb.ucsd.edu/classes/sp00/cse231/dynamopldi.pdf ?
> It has scalability issues and to rewrite a binary with a ~300M text segment size I'm curious what kinds of tasks require a binary with a 300 MB text size…
C++ lends itself to bloated binaries. Template instantiations are duplicated even for types where the instantiations could have identical code. Compilers have traditionally favored overly aggressive inlining over whole-program optimization.
Rust didn't solve the problem; it just duplicated the C++ approach, and made it worse by effectively compiling with the equivalent of C++ exceptions enabled. The next great systems language should target binary size and CPU frontend overhead.
> It has scalability issues and to rewrite a binary with a ~300M text segment size I'm curious what kinds of tasks require a binary with a 300 MB text size…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, I get that; I am curious what goes into a binary with 300 MB of code in it.
Google has very large applications, but also they are using static linking: imagine that you statically link all the possible dependencies in a single binary for each application. 300MB is not considered a large binary at Google actually, I don't know what is public but you may look at Table 2 in this publication for instance: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314105281_ThinLTO_S... I repro here some data, the…
Ah, that would probably be it.
> It has scalability issues and to rewrite a binary with a ~300M text segment size I'm curious what kinds of tasks require a binary with a 300 MB text size…
> I'm curious what kinds of tasks require a binary with a 300 MB text size… C++ lends itself to bloated binaries. Template instantiations are duplicated even for types where the instantiations could have identical code. Compilers have traditionally favored overly aggressive inlining over whole-program optimization. Rust didn't solve the problem; it just duplicated the C++ approach, and made it worse by effectively co…
compilers and linkers had identical code folding optimizations for a looooong time (20+ years for msvc, a decade or so for GNU gold (--icf option) and GCC (-fipa-icf))
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm curious what kinds of tasks require a binary with a 300 MB text size… C++ lends itself to bloated binaries. Template instantiations are duplicated even for types where the instantiations could have identical code. Compilers have traditionally favored overly aggressive inlining over whole-program optimization. Rust didn't solve the problem; it just duplicated the C++ approach, and made it worse by effectively co…
> Template instantiations are duplicated even for types where the instantiations could have identical code. compilers and linkers had identical code folding optimizations for a looooong time (20+ years for msvc, a decade or so for GNU gold (--icf option) and GCC (-fipa-icf))
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm curious what kinds of tasks require a binary with a 300 MB text size… C++ lends itself to bloated binaries. Template instantiations are duplicated even for types where the instantiations could have identical code. Compilers have traditionally favored overly aggressive inlining over whole-program optimization. Rust didn't solve the problem; it just duplicated the C++ approach, and made it worse by effectively co…
> Template instantiations are duplicated even for types where the instantiations could have identical code. compilers and linkers had identical code folding optimizations for a looooong time (20+ years for msvc, a decade or so for GNU gold (--icf option) and GCC (-fipa-icf))
If you look at the resulting binaries, they don't work as well as you might think.
> It has scalability issues and to rewrite a binary with a ~300M text segment size I'm curious what kinds of tasks require a binary with a 300 MB text size…
> I'm curious what kinds of tasks require a binary with a 300 MB text size… C++ lends itself to bloated binaries. Template instantiations are duplicated even for types where the instantiations could have identical code. Compilers have traditionally favored overly aggressive inlining over whole-program optimization. Rust didn't solve the problem; it just duplicated the C++ approach, and made it worse by effectively co…
Can anyone summarize differences with previous work like https://cseweb.ucsd.edu/classes/sp00/cse231/dynamopldi.pdf ?
> It has scalability issues and to rewrite a binary with a ~300M text segment size I'm curious what kinds of tasks require a binary with a 300 MB text size…
> I'm curious what kinds of tasks require a binary with a 300 MB text size… C++ lends itself to bloated binaries. Template instantiations are duplicated even for types where the instantiations could have identical code. Compilers have traditionally favored overly aggressive inlining over whole-program optimization. Rust didn't solve the problem; it just duplicated the C++ approach, and made it worse by effectively co…