[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       freedesktop-xcb
Subject:    Re: [Xcb] [PATCH 1/2] Don't declare xcb_req as static
From:       Keith Packard <keithp () keithp ! com>
Date:       2017-06-28 17:28:26
Message-ID: 86efu4nhs5.fsf () neko ! keithp ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/signed)]


Eric Anholt <eric@anholt.net> writes:

> Increasing the executed-code size by 4% here makes me nervous

Overall memory usage in the system will be less as you get rid of the
data segment duplication in every process.

> Is the problem just the relocations in that data?

Yes, even if the xcb_extension_t is also const, you've got a relocation
to deal with.

> Would pulling the req->ext out of xcb_protocol_request and passing it
> as another parameter of a new xcb_send_request variant also fix it,
> while letting us keep the remainder of the xcb_protocol_request_t
> static?

Yes, it looks like that should work. I note that there's also a global
mutex lock for every extension request which would be nice to eliminate
at some point :-)

-- 
-keith

["signature.asc" (application/pgp-signature)]
[Attachment #6 (text/plain)]

_______________________________________________
Xcb mailing list
Xcb@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xcb

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]