Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

mbed cli vs mbed tools bin size comparision #13974

Closed
ladislas opened this issue Nov 26, 2020 · 8 comments
Closed

mbed cli vs mbed tools bin size comparision #13974

ladislas opened this issue Nov 26, 2020 · 8 comments

Comments

@ladislas
Copy link
Contributor

Description of defect

This is not really a defect but more of an observation.

Compiling the mbed-os-example-blinky with mbed cli and mbed tools gives very different results in terms of generated binary size. It's a big win for mbed tools. I'm wondering what's the reason for this.

mbed cli

mbed compile -m DISCO_F769NI -t GCC_ARM
[mbed] Working path "/Users/ladislas/dev/tmp/mbed-os-example-blinky" (program)
Building project mbed-os-example-blinky (DISCO_F769NI, GCC_ARM)
Scan: mbed-os-example-blinky
Link: mbed-os-example-blinky
Elf2Bin: mbed-os-example-blinky
| Module               |     .text |    .data |      .bss |
|----------------------|-----------|----------|-----------|
| [fill]               |   100(+0) |    3(+0) |    29(+0) |
| [lib]/c.a            |  4852(+0) | 2108(+0) |    89(+0) |
| [lib]/gcc.a          |   920(+0) |    0(+0) |     0(+0) |
| [lib]/misc           |   188(+0) |    4(+0) |    28(+0) |
| main.o               |    76(+0) |    0(+0) |     0(+0) |
| mbed-os/cmsis        |  9492(+0) |  168(+0) |  6212(+0) |
| mbed-os/connectivity |  2128(+0) |    0(+0) | 12796(+0) |
| mbed-os/drivers      |   150(+0) |    0(+0) |     0(+0) |
| mbed-os/events       |  1510(+0) |    0(+0) |  3104(+0) |
| mbed-os/hal          |  1696(+0) |    8(+0) |   130(+0) |
| mbed-os/platform     |  5460(+0) |  260(+0) |   424(+0) |
| mbed-os/rtos         |  1182(+0) |    0(+0) |     8(+0) |
| mbed-os/storage      |    36(+0) |    0(+0) |     4(+0) |
| mbed-os/targets      | 13418(+0) |    9(+0) |  1272(+0) |
| Subtotals            | 41208(+0) | 2560(+0) | 24096(+0) |
Total Static RAM memory (data + bss): 26656(+0) bytes
Total Flash memory (text + data): 43768(+0) bytes

Image: ./BUILD/DISCO_F769NI/GCC_ARM/mbed-os-example-blinky.bin

mbed tools

mbed-tools compile -t GCC_ARM -m DISCO_F769NI
Configuring project and generating build system...
-- The C compiler identification is GNU 9.3.1
-- The CXX compiler identification is GNU 9.3.1
[...]
-- built: /Users/ladislas/dev/tmp/mbed-os-example-blinky/cmake_build/mbed-os-example-blinky.bin
-- built: /Users/ladislas/dev/tmp/mbed-os-example-blinky/cmake_build/mbed-os-example-blinky.hex
| Module           |         .text |       .data |        .bss |
|------------------|---------------|-------------|-------------|
| [fill]           |       58(+58) |       4(+4) |     25(+25) |
| [lib]/c.a        |   4836(+4836) | 2108(+2108) |     89(+89) |
| [lib]/gcc.a      |     760(+760) |       0(+0) |       0(+0) |
| [lib]/misc       |     188(+188) |       4(+4) |     28(+28) |
| main.cpp.obj     |       76(+76) |       0(+0) |       0(+0) |
| mbed-os/cmsis    |   6970(+6970) |   168(+168) | 6208(+6208) |
| mbed-os/drivers  |     150(+150) |       0(+0) |       0(+0) |
| mbed-os/hal      |   1696(+1696) |       8(+8) |   130(+130) |
| mbed-os/platform |   5394(+5394) |   260(+260) |   424(+424) |
| mbed-os/rtos     |       28(+28) |       0(+0) |       0(+0) |
| mbed-os/targets  | 10680(+10680) |       8(+8) | 1272(+1272) |
| Subtotals        | 30836(+30836) | 2560(+2560) | 8176(+8176) |
Total Static RAM memory (data + bss): 10736(+10736) bytes
Total Flash memory (text + data): 33396(+33396) bytes

Target(s) affected by this defect ?

DISCO_F769NI

Toolchain(s) (name and version) displaying this defect ?

arm-none-eabi-gcc --version
arm-none-eabi-gcc (GNU Arm Embedded Toolchain 9-2020-q2-update) 9.3.1 20200408 (release)

What version of Mbed-os are you using (tag or sha) ?

6.5.0

What version(s) of tools are you using. List all that apply (E.g. mbed-cli)

mbed --version
1.10.4

mbed-tools --version
3.5.1.dev36

How is this defect reproduced ?

Compile mbed-os-example-blinky with mbed-cli and mbed-tools and compare the results.
@40Grit
Copy link

40Grit commented Nov 26, 2020

Hoping they call it mbed tools instead of mbed-cli-2 as announced.

@ciarmcom
Copy link
Member

Thank you for raising this detailed GitHub issue. I am now notifying our internal issue triagers.
Internal Jira reference: https://jira.arm.com/browse/IOTOSM-2882

@0xc0170
Copy link
Contributor

0xc0170 commented Nov 27, 2020 •
edited
Loading

Hoping they call it mbed tools instead of mbed-cli-2 as announced.

Can you elaborate?

To the table above. We can see libs and main.cpp are almost identical. The difference is in the libraries. The table shows it, events or connectivity should not be in the blinky. The core libs have some differencies, I wonder about rtos as 28 bytes only ? The numbers might not be correct. We will review these numbers.

As we know linker is not always that clever (lto not yet enabled), therefore even some libraries not being used are still being pulled in to the final image. That is my experience.

cc @hugueskamba @rajkan01

@bulislaw
Copy link
Member

bulislaw commented Nov 27, 2020 •
edited
Loading

@0xc0170 @hugueskamba

mbed compile -m DISCO_F769NI -t GCC_ARM

| Module               |     .text |    .data |      .bss |
|----------------------|-----------|----------|-----------|
| [fill]               |   100(+0) |    3(+0) |    29(+0) |
| [lib]/c.a            |  4852(+0) | 2108(+0) |    89(+0) |
| [lib]/gcc.a          |   920(+0) |    0(+0) |     0(+0) |
| [lib]/misc           |   188(+0) |    4(+0) |    28(+0) |
| main.o               |    76(+0) |    0(+0) |     0(+0) |
| mbed-os/cmsis        |  9492(+0) |  168(+0) |  6212(+0) |
| mbed-os/connectivity |  2128(+0) |    0(+0) | 12796(+0) |
| mbed-os/drivers      |   150(+0) |    0(+0) |     0(+0) |
| mbed-os/events       |  1510(+0) |    0(+0) |  3104(+0) |
| mbed-os/hal          |  1696(+0) |    8(+0) |   130(+0) |
| mbed-os/platform     |  5460(+0) |  260(+0) |   424(+0) |
| mbed-os/rtos         |  1182(+0) |    0(+0) |     8(+0) |
| mbed-os/storage      |    36(+0) |    0(+0) |     4(+0) |
| mbed-os/targets      | 13418(+0) |    9(+0) |  1272(+0) |
| Subtotals            | 41208(+0) | 2560(+0) | 24096(+0) |
Total Static RAM memory (data + bss): 26656(+0) bytes
Total Flash memory (text + data): 43768(+0) bytes

mbed-tools compile -t GCC_ARM -m DISCO_F769NI

| Module           |         .text |       .data |        .bss |
|------------------|---------------|-------------|-------------|
| [fill]           |       58(+58) |       4(+4) |     25(+25) |
| [lib]/c.a        |   4836(+4836) | 2108(+2108) |     89(+89) |
| [lib]/gcc.a      |     760(+760) |       0(+0) |       0(+0) |
| [lib]/misc       |     188(+188) |       4(+4) |     28(+28) |
| main.cpp.obj     |       76(+76) |       0(+0) |       0(+0) |
| mbed-os/cmsis    |   6970(+6970) |   168(+168) | 6208(+6208) |
| mbed-os/drivers  |     150(+150) |       0(+0) |       0(+0) |
| mbed-os/hal      |   1696(+1696) |       8(+8) |   130(+130) |
| mbed-os/platform |   5394(+5394) |   260(+260) |   424(+424) |
| mbed-os/rtos     |       28(+28) |       0(+0) |       0(+0) |
| mbed-os/targets  | 10680(+10680) |       8(+8) | 1272(+1272) |
| Subtotals        | 30836(+30836) | 2560(+2560) | 8176(+8176) |
Total Static RAM memory (data + bss): 10736(+10736) bytes
Total Flash memory (text + data): 33396(+33396) bytes

10K less is a good savings hopefully this is because old system pulled in junk not because the new one excludes something needed.

With current tools I can see things shouldn't be present in a blinky (connectivity??), but we should check two things:

  • What's the detailed diff based on memory map and whether it's correct?
  • What if I actually need the connectivity on this board (or similar) does the socket example pull in the right things?

@hugueskamba
Copy link
Collaborator

hugueskamba commented Nov 27, 2020 •
edited
Loading

  • What if I actually need the connectivity on this board (or similar) does the socket example pull in the right things?

The socket example should include the optional connectivity library (i.e CMake target) it requires to build.

@ladislas
Copy link
Contributor Author

10K less is a good savings hopefully this is because old system pulled in junk not because the new one excludes something needed.

@bulislaw we've been using mbed-cmake for a few months now and already noticed the size difference (USCRPL/mbed-cmake#4)

We haven't add any issues with our project that is using more than just the blinky example: BLE, WIFI, SD, FileSystem, etc. -- all works perfectly well!

@ladislas
Copy link
Contributor Author

We are currently in the process of moving from USCRPL/mbed-cmake to vanilla mbed-cmake, I'll let you know if we have any issues (already fixed one #13973)

@ladislas ladislas mentioned this issue Nov 29, 2020
Closed
@0xc0170
Copy link
Contributor

0xc0170 commented Jan 26, 2021

Thanks for the feedback. I'll close this now. If there is anything we shall improve, lets create a new issue.

@0xc0170 0xc0170 closed this as completed Jan 26, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
6 participants
@bulislaw @ladislas @0xc0170 @40Grit @ciarmcom @hugueskamba