Re: [PATCH] Start of compat32.h (again)

[David S. Miller]

   From: Andi Kleen <[e-mail]>
   Date: 02 Dec 2002 09:13:58 +0100
   
   Random sample (with .ehframe stripped):
   
   64bit ls:
   -rwxr-xr-x    1 root     root        76672 Oct 25 05:59 /bin/ls
     text    data     bss     dec     hex filename
     64847    7752    1136   73735   12007 /bin/ls
   
   32bit ls: 
   -rwxr-xr-x    1 root     root        68524 2002-09-09 22:56 /bin/ls
     text    data     bss     dec     hex filename
     65353    1112     872   67337   10709 /bin/ls
   
   [< 1K .text growth, some .data growth due to 64bit pointers]

The data is where I'd say the bloat would be, and lo and behold is a
nearly 7-fold increase for the sample you give us _only_ in the .data
section.

This doesn't even include dynamically allocated data structures,
things that sit on the stack, etc.

I can definitely see the text staying roughly the same, that's not the
big cost, it's the larger data structures.

BTW, I bet your dynamic relocation tables are a bit larger too.