4 ms·
Compiling is CPU-bound and doesn't really bottleneck on anything that libc is involved with other than the allocator, so unless musl's allocator is comically sl
by marcan_42 5y ago
Compiling is CPU-bound and doesn't really bottleneck on anything that libc is involved with other than the allocator, so unless musl's allocator is comically slower than glib's, chances are it's just -Os.
- nicoburns 5y agoI believe musl’s allocator is known for being pretty poor.
- ghotli 5y agomusl-1.2.1.tar.gz (sig) - August 4, 2020 This release features the new "mallocng" malloc implementation, replacing musl's original dlmalloc-like allocator that suffered from fundamental design problems. https://inbox.vuxu.org/musl/20200518194204.GG21576@brightrain.aerifal.cx/ https://inbox.vuxu.org/musl/20200518194204.GG21576@brightrai... Pretty good writeup from the author https://musl.libc.org/releases.html https://musl.libc.org/releases.html Rest of the detail in the actual changelog is worth reviewing too
- nicoburns 5y agoSounds like my information is out of date!
- Johnnynator 5y agoThis is pretty much -Os. Void Linux provides -O2 builds of GCC for both musl and glibc with a negligible performance difference. I have not benchmarked it lately, but it is clearly below 10%.