| 1 |
2016-08-19 11:11 GMT+08:00 C Bergström <cbergstrom@×××××××××.com>: |
| 2 |
> I think you're getting a bit confused |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> libsupc++ is the default now, from GNU |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> libcxxabi is the bloated runtime from Apple |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> libcxxrt is the faster c++ runtime, PathScale+David Chisnall, which |
| 9 |
> PathScale and FreeBSD use by default. We don't need a version number |
| 10 |
> because it's pretty much rock solid stable for a while. |
| 11 |
> I'd encourage you to consider libcxxrt for at least the code size and |
| 12 |
> performance reasons. Build it and you'll see. Locally my unoptimized |
| 13 |
> libcxxrt.so is like 88K. How much is your libcxxabi (static and |
| 14 |
> shared) |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> 88K /opt/enzo-2016-06-26/lib/6.0.983/x8664/64/libcxxrt.so |
| 17 |
> 140K /opt/enzo-2016-06-26/lib/6.0.983/x8664/64/libcxxrt.a |
| 18 |
> // This seems larger than I remember and I need to check why. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> https://github.com/pathscale/libcxxrt |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Currently libcxxrt is the default ABI lib for libc++ in Gentoo. I mean |
| 23 |
to replace it with libc++abi in that context. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I'm interested in benchmarking to reveal the claimed difference in |
| 26 |
performance. Perhaps I can build the same program against libcxxrt and |
| 27 |
libc++abi respectively and see how it behaves. Do you have some hints |
| 28 |
on what kind of programs I should test? |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Thanks, |
| 32 |
Lei |
Archives